|
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Chaos conservative Utah after marriage ruled legal/9315143/story.html
A federal judge overturned the gay marriage in Utah. Countless numbers of gay couples have been trying get married. This is big news, as this case will likely be elevated to the Supreme Court in 2015 or 2016.
Many marriage licenses have been issued as the state of Utah appeals to a judge for a legal stay in order to stop them from continuing.
edit: Update!
The Governor of Utah tried to stop same sex marriage in Utah by filing a motion for an emergency stay. The 10th Circuit Court has denied his request. Same Sex Marriage is still legal in Utah!
|
This is excellent news. Equality is spreading 
|
Gay men can't stop having intercourse with each other via casual encounters, causing an "exploding epidemic" of HIV. Now the WHO recommends that gay men take anti-HIV drugs as a way to prevent infection.
The World Health Organization has suggested for the first time that all men who have sex with men should take antiretroviral medicine, warning that HIV infection rates among gay men are exploding around the world.
In guidelines published Friday, it said that it “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection.” Similar guidelines were issued by the U.S. in May.
Sources:
http://time.com/2975573/who-hiv-aids-gay-men-homosexual-epidemic-rise/
http://www.afp.com/en/news/who-warns-hiv-exploding-among-gay-men-urges-preventive-drugs
Thoughts?
|
This isn't really "news", at least in the developed world, and quite frankly every gay man should be using protection as par for the course. Even if gay porn nowadays is glorifying barebacking, condoms are quintessential in the developed world nowadays.
Taking recommending everyone take preventative drugs is going abit overboard, quite frankly, though given the state of the crisis in certain locations such as S-S Africa, and the rapid rise in places like SEAsia, its an understandable recommendation.
|
United States41956 Posts
If they care enough about AIDS to start taking a strict antiviral regimen then why aren't they just using condoms? This is like proposing that kids who blow off school do extra homework. It does nothing to address the problem within the conditions necessitated by the existence of the problem.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
Gays aren't using condoms because they can't impregnate anyone. It's simply the biggest incentive for heterosexuals to use protection. People in general just don't care much about not spreading diseases, you just have to look at the percentage of people not finishing their antibiotic treatments.
|
United States1225 Posts
|
On July 16 2014 07:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Gays aren't using condoms because they can't impregnate anyone. It's simply the biggest incentive for heterosexuals to use protection. People in general just don't care much about not spreading diseases, you just have to look at the percentage of people not finishing their antibiotic treatments.
Not sure "gays use less condoms" is the main issue : there is a huge difference in contamination risk between vaginal and anal intercourse. (CDC numbers). In one case risk is 1,5% ; In the other, it's 0,1%.
If you consider someone HIV positive lives about 10 years without treatment, this means without condoms an heterosexual contaminates in turn ~1.04 people (considering the average of 2 intercourses a week) which is barely enough for the disease to spread. With the same frequency, each contaminated homosexual man will in turn contaminate 15 others, which spreads rapidly.
If both populations stop elementary precautions at the same time, the first spike seen is among homosexual men, before an incoming global spread. This was the main reason AIDS was first spotted among gays in the 1980s and part of the reason why it took 50 years between the first contamination and the identification, but it does not mean the spread isn't starting anew in the global population.
(another reason being that the populations are not exactly separate)
|
Oh boy. I might be able to be proud of my state in a bit.
|
or at least not as embarased
|
On November 06 2014 00:25 ComaDose wrote:
or at least not as embarased
Its Kansas. I'll take anything at this point.
|
On November 06 2014 00:33 packrat386 wrote:Its Kansas. I'll take anything at this point.
good point! if they can do it everyone can!
|
United States1225 Posts
|
Fairly obvious that gay marriage bans won't survive in court ever.
Just seems like silly political gamesmanship that wastes resources.
|
|
|
United States1225 Posts
Eh, even if the conservative contingent gets a boner for state's rights, they'll probably uphold the status quo of it being a matter of referendum or court cases in individual states, rather than attack the legitimacy of gay marriage itself. So, we just continue going state by state and feel bad for people in Mississippi. :/
|
They did the last time this came up. Even Scalia's dissent wasn't focused on gay marriage, but why the legislator had not handle it. They are never going to uphold a gay marriage ban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
