HIV, Hep B and C Testing before marriage!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 11:23 AM GMT
    In Saudi Arabia they have made it mandatory to have these three tests done before marriage....What do you think? Should you be made to take these tests?

    Obviously if you have "pre-marital sex" you have already put yourself at risk, but I think if you plan to live your life with someone each person should have these tests for themselves and their loved one.....we should all be tested before hand but this atleast gets a control on testing and hopefully treatment for those who may need it.

    So many people never get tested and infect others unknowingly.
    http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=105463&d=9&m=1&y=2008
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 07, 2010 1:01 PM GMT
    Might not be a bad idea between 2 consenting adults, but to make it a government run mandatory law, going way to far. It is amazing our government supports this country, but than oil speaks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 1:24 PM GMT
    I support this.

    If you aren't going to take the responsibility and keep up on your testing yourself, and then you go and try to get married without knowing your states, well... that's rather stupid of both parties.

    This way both parties find out about the other having any deadly diseases. If you're truly in love it should matter, right? Otherwise why the fuck are you getting married?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 1:43 PM GMT
    YES ABSOLUTELY!
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Jan 07, 2010 2:06 PM GMT
    Some states in Malaysia require HIV test too. I am not sure if they will stop you from getting marriage if someone is tested positive. I cant marriage a men, and will not marriage a women, so I guess it nothing to do with me.
    As for Hep B and C, I dont think so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 2:23 PM GMT
    The question is what you plan on doing with that information. Are you going to tell two people not to get married based on the results?

    I think people should get tested, but for their own sake. Not because it's mandatory.

    Then again, if governments allocated half the funding they do to prevention to actual research, these diseases would probably be eradicated and all this testing would be unnecessary.
  • ManlyPointer

    Posts: 10

    Jan 07, 2010 2:25 PM GMT
    it's about personal responsibility and not government interference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 2:40 PM GMT
    Here the thing in the states you can not even apply for a wedding lic if you have not taken and gotten back your results of a blood test which test for certain STD's which includes Hep C & B & HIV .

    I think the Sudi is just being proactive. How is that wrong?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 2:41 PM GMT
    GwgTrunks saidI support this.

    If you aren't going to take the responsibility and keep up on your testing yourself, and then you go and try to get married without knowing your states, well... that's rather stupid of both parties.

    This way both parties find out about the other having any deadly diseases. If you're truly in love it should matter, right? Otherwise why the fuck are you getting married?


    Absolutely - if you're marrying someone surely this is just an obvious thing to do?? Or why bother !
  • phunkie

    Posts: 325

    Jan 07, 2010 2:48 PM GMT
    I support this. Not only because this is a step towards controlling it, it also speaks of government taking control of health issues for the public, which they are too lousy/lazy to do for themselves. These diseases don't get spread only by pre-marital sex, there are other ways and people can get infected unknowingly. Consenting adults or not, this is a good step towards healthier future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 3:17 PM GMT
    i support it just cuz i dont see anything wrong with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    redbull saidIn Saudi Arabia they have made it mandatory to have these three tests done before marriage....What do you think? Should you be made to take these tests?


    I would be wary of a law in such a country - being a Muslim with HIV - this is perhaps only a means of tracking and ostracizing those with HIV and HEP.

    In addition, as with many orthodox and conservative Muslim countries, finding out that you have HIV in Saudi Arabia could lead to jail time or punishment because sex outside a marriage is against their religious laws. HIV is considered a gay disease by many in the Middle East.

    I wouldn't jump on the band wagon about requiring such a test unless there are safe guards to insure that the person is counseled and protected - not tormented for having HIV or HEP.

    Remember Saudi is not a country that "promotes safe sex." ANY sex outside a heterosexual marriage is considered punishable. And as far as I know if there are enough witnesses to prove homosexual sex by an individual - it is punishable by death.
    Any type or fornication or adultery the law does require 4 witnesses to actually have seen it - part of Sharia (Islamic law). But I am sure they get around that issue.

    Does anyone think this would be a good idea for those still trying to make a life in the closet fearing for the mortality in such a country?

    It pains me greatly to see this because I don't feel this is true religious belief but the prejudices and fears of a culture. I so yearn to visit the holy sites of Mecca and Medina - but I will not endanger my life or my family in the process.

    Consider this before deciding if such a law is worthy.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 07, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    Seems like a smart and proactive approach to me
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 3:47 PM GMT
    Ducky46 saidHere the thing in the states you can not even apply for a wedding lic if you have not taken and gotten back your results of a blood test which test for certain STD's which includes Hep C & B & HIV .

    I think the Sudi is just being proactive. How is that wrong?


    You can't? Are you sure about that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 3:50 PM GMT
    Well let me say this I know it's the law in California and also in New York. It was pretty slip-shod of me to think that it's the law of the land when it's prolly not. 8-)

    Thanks Brad for keeping me on point! 8-)
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Jan 07, 2010 3:51 PM GMT
    It seems smart. As long as the results are only shared with the significant other. It sure would cut back on drunk and stupid Vegas weddings if it were a requirement. icon_smile.gif
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Jan 07, 2010 4:23 PM GMT
    Ducky46 saidHere the thing in the states you can not even apply for a wedding lic if you have not taken and gotten back your results of a blood test which test for certain STD's which includes Hep C & B & HIV .

    I think the Sudi is just being proactive. How is that wrong?



    I wish that for true will all the states.

    As far as Hep B & C, I know they have a vaccine for B, but I don't think they have one for C yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 4:51 PM GMT
    Ducky46 saidWell let me say this I know it's the law in California and also in New York. It was pretty slip-shod of me to think that it's the law of the land when it's prolly not. 8-)

    Thanks Brad for keeping me on point! 8-)


    No prob Kris

    Actually I was just curious. I know several people who have married in CT and NYC and they never had to take any sort of blood test. I was just wondering...
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Jan 07, 2010 5:01 PM GMT
    I think this should be up to the individuals in question, and not have any government involvement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    I stand corrected on California & New York requiring blood test before marriage they used to but appraently not anymore! Sorry gents! 8-)
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 07, 2010 7:24 PM GMT
    Ducky46 saidI stand corrected on California & New York requiring blood test before marriage they used to but appraently not anymore! Sorry gents! 8-)


    I bet there are others to.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 07, 2010 7:35 PM GMT
    phunkie saidI support this. Not only because this is a step towards controlling it, it also speaks of government taking control of health issues for the public, which they are too lousy/lazy to do for themselves. These diseases don't get spread only by pre-marital sex, there are other ways and people can get infected unknowingly. Consenting adults or not, this is a good step towards healthier future.


    If you take your and others logic a step further, the government could than have the right to stop 2 consenting adults from marrying because of positive tests.

    It is amazing to me that people would think this is ok. The government has no business in our private lives. It has taken years to get rid of laws that interfered in the lives of gay people, and others. If this began happening there would be no end to what you could be tested for, and possibly face consequences for it, especially if the Right Wing Republicans had their way.
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Jan 07, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    Beefy Artist,

    As fellow Muslim, I understand perfectly well what are you talking about. Those people who assume that AIDS is a gay disease need to wake up and know the truth. AIDS didnt discriminate, and you can get it in so many way like sharing needle, blood tranfusion, getting rape, husband/wife, mother/child and etc. Most folk in my country get it through sharing needle with fellow drug user.

    It really sad, that this sort of injustice still persistance in 2010, after AIDS be with us for so long. It purely ignorant , stupidity and dumb

    Hug from me.
    Salam
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Jan 07, 2010 11:37 PM GMT
    I'm pretty sure some states have laws like these already in place (or at least used to). Illinois I think is one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong.

    I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people get married with the expectation of having children. If that's something that isn't an option, someone should know vs. getting married and finding out after the fact. I say nothing wrong with that unless that information gets stored or used for governmental needs. It should just be purely anonymous and both individuals should get their results together as a couple IMO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    Decades ago, there were two reasons why blood tests were required in order to get a marriage license. The first was to test for venereal or communicable diseases (most often syphilis). The second was to test for the RH factor to prevent miscarriages. During the height of the AIDS crisis some states begun testing for HIV as a prerequisite to obtain a marriage license.

    As HIV became a manageable disease and anti-discrimination laws were put in the books to prevent discrimination of individuals carrying the virus, there were legal challenges to those requirements. Marriage is a protected right that gets the highest protection under the laws in the U.S. The government simply cannot place restrictions on people's choice of a partner that can have a discriminatory impact. As time went on, states gradually begun to drop the blood test requirement and by 2005, there were only a few states that required blood tests for a marriage license (Georgia, Montana, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Indiana, and a few others). But I think it is likely that even those hold out states have probably abolished the requirement by now.

    Should everyone get tested for all STDs before getting married? Absolutely, in fact, I think every guy and girl that is about to have a new sexual partner should walk together hand-in-hand to the clinic before having sex for the first time.

    Should the government require people to test for STDs as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license? NO. BUT, perhaps the government could make it so that couples can get tested and get the license regardless of the results. This scenario would probably be allowed to occur IF there was a case of epidemic proportions that gave the governmnet a really good reason to intrude people's privacy.