University: gay marriage ban=higher hiv rate for gays

[SonOfSlobone]

Here's a link to a more detailed article:

http://www.sovo.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/10213.cfm

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Then why don't they just fucking say that.

They did.

 

[Apollo]

Oh they did....meh.

there needs to be a foot in mouth emoticon

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Oh they did....meh.

there needs to be a foot in mouth emoticon

You owe them an apology. Since they're not here I'll accept a blowjob on their behalf.

 

[Gussss]

It does depend greatly on the area like for instance if you are living in a backwoods hick town in say Alabama. Lack of acceptance, lack of information and lack of useful education can lead to some pretty devastating scenarios across the board.

Looks like they'd be better off than, oh I'd say, half of the country.

 

[Apollo]

You owe them an apology. Since they're not here I'll accept a blowjob on their behalf.

Well you know if I MUST. Let me get my jaw ready first, I've heard stories about your dick.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Gussss, curiosity begs, does that chart account for people who aren't getting tested?

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Hmm, I guess I'd have to see the study. Obviously you're going to get higher rates in states with more gay people. They could be measuring it some other way.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

And D.C. isn't held in high regards for it's education system either.

>lightbulb<

Hmmm... wonder if that has anything to do with it.

It probably does.

 

[Gussss]

Gussss, curiosity begs, does that chart account for people who aren't getting tested?

How do you report HIV/AIDS status of a person who's never been tested for it?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

How do you report HIV/AIDS status of a person who's never been tested for it?

Some studies make estimates.

 

[Gussss]

Hmm, I guess I'd have to see the study. Obviously you're going to get higher rates in states with more gay people. They could be measuring it some other way.

If I understand you correctly, now you're saying the HIV/AIDS rate is higher in states that have more gays, and not based on the perceived tolerance/intolerance of gays.

Link: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=11&ind=502

From Link: "Notes: Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS, reported from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007. U.S. totals include data from the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia), and from U.S. dependencies, possessions, and independent nations in free association with the U.S., and persons whose state or area of residence is unknown.

Sources: Table 16, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2007, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/default.htm.

Footnotes: 1.U.S. total includes persons from the Pacific Islands, persons reported from areas with confidential name-based AIDS reporting but who are residents of other areas, and 1,084 persons whose state or area of residence is unknown "

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

If I understand you correctly, now you're saying the HIV/AIDS rate is higher in states that have more gays, and not based on the perceived tolerance/intolerance of gays.

Nope. Merge the two and then you'll understand correctly. It doesn't have to be "either/or", it's a combination of both statements.

 

[Gussss]

Nope. Merge the two and then you'll understand correctly. It doesn't have to be "either/or", it's a combination of both statements.

But only one of the two were taken into consideration in that study, and it wasn't the gay population.

So that study was more "either" and less "or".

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

But only one of the two were taken into consideration in that study, and it wasn't the gay population.

So that study was more "either" and less "or".

How do you know?

The two researchers used mathematical models to compare HIV rates to different markers of tolerance for LGBT people. Among those markers included laws and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Per their research, as tolerance increases, HIV rates decrease.

There were variables they considered, the article doesn't list them.

 

[Gussss]

How do you know?

Because I read.

Fifth, tolerance may cause gay men to move into a state, which may impact the HIV rate.
Because HIV and the size of the gay population are positively correlated, all else equal, this
effect runs in the opposite direction of our findings. Even so, the effect of tolerance on HIV
remains whether or not we control for each state’s annual share of total entries in the Damron
travel guide, which is a proxy for migration of gays across states (see Tables 3-5).

Link: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~hmialon/Tolerance_and_HIV.pdf

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Because I read.

Congratulations. Do that next time and spare us the confusion.

 

[Gussss]

Congratulations. Do that next time and spare us the confusion.

I don't think people were confused by what I had to say, maybe it was just you.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I don't think people were confused by what I had to say, maybe it was just you.

Girl I think you gettin' sleepy.

If I understand you correctly, now you're saying the HIV/AIDS rate is higher in states that have more gays, and not based on the perceived tolerance/intolerance of gays.

For some reason you won't accept that both contribute to the overall message here, you're insistant that it's one or the other, and "proved" it by linking the article the study that says that it's both.

 

[TygreBryte]

I would agree. Also, the VERY recent legalization of gay marriage in the states that allow it would seem to render any conclusions like this rather dubious imo. It's probably likely that these states had lower rates of infection even before gay marriage was legal.

wow I bet the researchers who did the study or the peer-reviewers who gave it the OK to be published NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!