I had a big long rambling thing, but it was long and rambly. So here' the short version
1:Making something illegal acts as a preventative measure on its own. Getting rid of a ban, even one that is rarely or never enforced, would lead to much more of said action being done. This is universal no matter what was banned, be it alcohol, pot, or chewing gum. You'd be surprised at how many goodie two shoes there are out there. Not to say it is always effective, but you might, for example, buy beer for a 20 year old friend. You are far less likely buy beer for a 20 year old stranger, not matter how dumb you think that law is or how little it is enforced. More on this in point three.
2: As said earlier, anal sex is more likely to transmit STDs. This is just less prominent with straight couples or lesbians.
3: Striking down these laws would make it easier for pick up artists to prey upon gay men, for casual relationships with strangers, or just plain old experimentation to occur. As I stated before, even a fig leaf of a law discourages people from doing stuff. Coupled with the increased risk, this would lead to a greater instance of HIV infection. And unlike things like alcohol, pot, or chewing gum, HIV tends to stick around a lot longer.
4: Diseases tend to grow somewhat exponentially. Over simplified, yes, but as a general rule, more exposure means the disease spreads disproportionately faster. This is especially true with the pick up artists since they, along with prostitutes, are the biggest transmission vectors. Even slightly hampering them would have a disproportionately large effect of slowing the disease.
TLDR, getting rid of the anti sodomy laws makes non-monogamous relationships more viable for the people most vulnerable to the disease.
I had a big long rambling thing, but it was long and rambly. So here' the short version
1:Making something illegal acts as a preventative measure on its own. Getting rid of a ban, even one that is rarely or never enforced, would lead to much more of said action being done. This is universal no matter what was banned, be it alcohol, pot, or chewing gum. You'd be surprised at how many goodie two shoes there are out there. Not to say it is always effective, but you might, for example, buy beer for a 20 year old friend. You are far less likely buy beer for a 20 year old stranger, not matter how dumb you think that law is or how little it is enforced. More on this in point three.
2: As said earlier, anal sex is more likely to transmit STDs. This is just less prominent with straight couples or lesbians.
3: Striking down these laws would make it easier for pick up artists to prey upon gay men, for casual relationships with strangers, or just plain old experimentation to occur. As I stated before, even a fig leaf of a law discourages people from doing stuff. Coupled with the increased risk, this would lead to a greater instance of HIV infection. And unlike things like alcohol, pot, or chewing gum, HIV tends to stick around a lot longer.
4: Diseases tend to grow somewhat exponentially. Over simplified, yes, but as a general rule, more exposure means the disease spreads disproportionately faster. This is especially true with the pick up artists since they, along with prostitutes, are the biggest transmission vectors. Even slightly hampering them would have a disproportionately large effect of slowing the disease.
TLDR, getting rid of the anti sodomy laws makes non-monogamous relationships more viable for the people most vulnerable to the disease.
It was less about the amount of sexual relationships and more about the types of relationships, monogamous low risk versus high risk hookups, that was what I was mostly referring to. With diseases it only takes a few jackasses to ruin things for everyone. But you have a point. I disagree, but I do understand your argument.Yeah I think you're really arguing two completely contradictory things in this thread. On the one hand, nobody listens to medical advice, information campaigns won't make any difference, a more 'open' atmosphere about sexual health won't make any difference because people are just going to have sex, and likely risky sex anyway, and deal with the consequences afterwards; and then on the other hand, a pretty much only nominal shift in the law like that which a reversed Bowers would effect is going to have huge effects on people's behaviour, to the point where mass internment would come on the agenda, because apparently in this instance people are goody-two-shoes who completely follow the law, even when it's essentially a dead letter, and will desist from having sex.
Particularly in respect of your argument that de facto legalisation transitioning to completely de jure legalisation would result in an explosion of gay sex, I really don't think human beings, and gay men especially, actually work that way.
Do Australian doctors generally ask about the age of a person's partner? Cause in America that would be super illegal as far as I am aware.Nonsense, to the contrary, read https://www.smh.com.au/national/homosexual-age-of-consent-bill-under-debate-20030520-gdgsl1.html, which shows, that, the unequal age of consent until 2003 in the Australian state of New South Wales prevented a gay guy from accessing sex health services.
I looked at it and the actual data they give is lacking to say the least. What I can tell you is that the countries with the lowest HIV infection rate are all "harsh" on the scale of permissiveness. And so are the ones with rates so high that the treatment of gay relationships is clearly not the issue.
This one does not actually speak about the infection rates, which are my main concern. It talks about social stigma and medical visits, but nothing on the actual disease itself. Unless it's buried somewhere in the links that I didn't go through.
I actually can't access the data this article links to, so sorry about that. Is there another link? That said, in the part I could access, it only mentions that more tolerance caused a 1 per 100K decrease from the 70s to the 90s. I can think of a whole load of things that could have simply been linked to awareness of the disease to changing cultural norms.
Really the lack of control is disappointing, but I guess you can't really do that with legislation.
Which I was saying isn't nearly as much of an issue, since preventing the risky behavior to begin with makes such medical care a moot point. Especially since, surprise surprise, people as a rule don't seek medical help unless there's an existent medical problem. That's what I was arguing.
Honestly, I think it is a matter of approach in how we treat disease. I argue prevention, you argue treatment. And in most cases I would actually agree with you. But, until very recently, there was no treatment for this disease. And back in the mid 80's things would be very different than today. It was the tuberculosis of the twentieth century. If you died slowly and painfully.
There's a significantly greater risk of torn tissue associated with anal sex which makes STD transmission far more likely. You just don't generally see this as much among straight couples or lesbians as often, hence the the risk being attributed to male homosexuality, hence the discordance between me and Expat. Back then, that was the primary transmission vector. These days it's prostitutes and dirty needles.
Particularly in respect of your argument that de facto legalisation transitioning to completely de jure legalisation would result in an explosion of gay sex, I really don't think human beings, and gay men especially, actually work that way.
Dude, it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread that people didn't care about people being gay for the most part. "Homophobia" would not be an issue affecting the numbers in this instance.
Dude, it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread that people didn't care about people being gay for the most part. "Homophobia" would not be an issue affecting the numbers in this instance.
Edit:
I feel I should clarify. I'n not talking about a massive increase like you guys are implying. What differences there would be would amount to statistical noise if we weren't talking about AIDS which has a very long period of being asymptomatic while being transmittable. That would make an extremely small change would snowball rapidly just like it did OTL. I'm saying it would be earlier and worse.
If I seem to be overly invested in this, I apologize, but HIV is one of those issues I am really touchy about.
Dude, it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread that people didn't care about people being gay for the most part. "Homophobia" would not be an issue affecting the numbers in this instance.
Edit:
I feel I should clarify. I'n not talking about a massive increase like you guys are implying. What differences there would be would amount to statistical noise if we weren't talking about AIDS which has a very long period of being asymptomatic while being transmittable. That would make an extremely small change would snowball rapidly just like it did OTL. I'm saying it would be earlier and worse.
If I seem to be overly invested in this, I apologize, but HIV is one of those issues I am really touchy about.
Moreover I think under these circumstances your timeline for legalized gay marriage in a few states by the late 90s tracks well.
Actually, the decision might make it harder for gay marriage. The religious right would probably recognize that they didn't have the votes for a constitutional amendment to overturn this alt-Bowers, so they would devote their energies to "let's at least make sure they can't get married." As a result, state constitutional bans on gay marriage might be earlier and more widespread than in OTL.
Actually, the decision might make it harder for gay marriage. The religious right would probably recognize that they didn't have the votes for a constitutional amendment to overturn this alt-Bowers, so they would devote their energies to "let's at least make sure they can't get married." As a result, state constitutional bans on gay marriage might be earlier and more widespread than in OTL.
Gay marriage was FRINGE back then, so they wouldn't even think of it. By the time they might think of it post-bowers shifts in attitudes wouls make that a nonstarter.Actually, the decision might make it harder for gay marriage. The religious right would probably recognize that they didn't have the votes for a constitutional amendment to overturn this alt-Bowers, so they would devote their energies to "let's at least make sure they can't get married." As a result, state constitutional bans on gay marriage might be earlier and more widespread than in OTL.
You would be moving the impact of Lawrence v. Texas back 17 years. As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, I'm not sure how much faster it could have evolved. As late as 2004, both presidential candidates, along with Senate candidate Barack Obama shared a similar stand: same-sex unions deserve better recognition, but to call them marriages is a bit of a stretch (or shock). As we know, attitudes changed rapidly as Obama updated his stand five years later.
I have never seen many details on the repeal of sodomy laws. Being gay was illegal in all 50 states in 1960, and sill illegal everywhere except Illinois when the Stonewall Riots came to New York in 1969. And when Lawrence came in 2003, there were only about 13 or 16 states left.