# Why do some parts of America require a blood test for marriage?



## .   1

Hello again,
My question this time is;
Why do some parts of America require a blood test for marriage?

There is nothing like this in Australia.

.,,


----------



## Nunty

It is a VDRL, a blood test for syphilis. I suppose it is intended to protect the other party from infection. (*)

(*) Information valid for California.


----------



## boardslide315

I've never heard about this until now--apparently they are required in a few states (only four actually) in order to test for STD's.


----------



## mirx

I am nor sure if you mean The States by America, but I assume the reasons are mostly the same everywhere.

Blood tests are practiced mainly to avoid marriages among close relatives, to detect any life threatnening disease that might discourage one of the spouses-to-be from marrying, or that could later on jeopardize the marriage.
Since legally a marriage is a singed contract between two parties, I find it very sensible that these tests are asked for, the government should see through that the rights of the persons involved are cared for.

I wonder now, do these tests are not performed in Australia or other countries?


----------



## .   1

mirx said:


> I am nor sure if you mean The States by America, but I assume the reasons are mostly the same everywhere.


Where else do you think 'America' is appropriate and understood as an indication of the identity of a geopolitical entity?



mirx said:


> Blood tests are practiced mainly to avoid marriages among close relatives, to detect any life threatnening disease that might discourage one of the spouses-to-be from marrying or that could jeopardized the marriage.
> Since legally a marriage is a singed contract between two parties, I find it very sensible that these tests are asked for


And this is not considered to be an invasion of privacy because?



mirx said:


> I wonder now, do these tests are not performed in Australia or other countries?


May I draw your attention to my thread opener.



. said:


> There is nothing like this in Australia.


 
.,,


----------



## mirx

. said:


> Where else do you think 'America' is appropriate and understood as an indication of the identity of a geopolitical entity?
> 
> And this is not considered to be an invasion of privacy because?
> 
> May I draw your attention to my thread opener.
> 
> 
> 
> .,,


 

Well the reasons are there... Whether is invasion of privacy or not is not my concern, it happens for legal reasons and I am not a senator and have no say on the matter. It may be just one of those cases, as it happens in China with the reproductive restrictions.

Again I find it very logical, marriages among relatives are not aproved of, and authorities have to discourage them by whichever means they have.

They may also, as I say before, detect a disease that perhaps none of the engaged were aware of. 

Whether it bothers me or not, well I am not sure yet, it´s always been like that and to be honest I have never given it a thought. 

Do I pesonally feel invaded in my privacy?
I don't, I see it just as one of the many procedures that require you to give personal info, besides just like all the other procedures, this one also keeps its confidentiality and you are in no risk to be exposed, and even if you were, I don't think anyone will care about it.

I felt your reply a bit dry and agressive, but maybe is just me.

Cheers


----------



## Lombard Beige

mirx said:


> ... Blood tests are practiced mainly to avoid marriages among close relatives, to detect any life threatnening disease that might discourage one of the spouses-to-be from marrying or that could jeopardized the marriage.
> Since legally a marriage is a singed contract between two parties, I find it very sensible that these tests are asked for ...



It seems reasonable to me, as a party should not enter into a contract blindly. Also, as a marriage between persons of different sexes may lead to the birth of children, I think it reasonable for the State to protect their rights in advance.

Re privacy, if the rights of third parties, i.e. the children, etc., are involved, I think that the right of privacy lapses, at least as far as the partner is concerned. However, I don't think the results should be made public. 

regards


----------



## boardslide315

. said:


> And this is not considered to be an invasion of privacy because?



No one thinks that total control or anarchy is a good idea, but everybody has a different idea of where the compromise should be. You see a mandatory blood test as an invasion of privacy. Since I don't live in a state with that law, I do as well. But I imagine if I knew about it and had my whole life to accept it, I probably wouldn't think too much of it. The way we feel about being controlled in certain aspects of our lives is somewhat arbitrary and ultimately relative to the person and their culture--I myself resent the idea of, for instance, being forced to vote


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

. said:


> There is nothing like this in Australia.
> 
> .,,



There is certainly nothing like this in Ireland either. Is it legally defined that couples in some parts of America must do this or is it just the "done thing"?

I can understand the reasons behind it but it seems to me that if you're going to marry someone you should already be aware if they have a harmful disease or not.


----------



## Etcetera

I've heard about this blood test. In Russia, there isn't anything like that - and I'd rather there were such tests. 
What about the rhesus factor? I've heard that if the baby's rhesus is different from the mother's, it can be dangerous for the baby.


----------



## mirx

Etcetera said:


> I've heard about this blood test. In Russia, there isn't anything like that - and I'd rather there were such tests.
> What about the rhesus factor? I've heard that if the baby's rhesus is different from the mother's, it can be dangerous for the baby.


 

It can, although you won't know the rh of the baby until he is conceived and the blood tests are made before the couple gets married. If the couple gets pregnant before marriage or already has a child, it is even more reasonable to make such tests. I stand for them too.


----------



## maxiogee

mirx said:


> Blood tests are practiced mainly to avoid marriages among close relatives,



The concept of blood tests in America has appeared in many American films going back to beyond my childhood.
Was there, even in the recent past, an ability to 'predict' such marriages from the results of blood tests?

No tests on any bodily fluids are performed in Ireland.


----------



## Kajjo

No tests on any bodily fluids are performed in Germany. I regard such tests because of sexually transmittable diseases as quite ridiculously, because nowadays infection would have taken place anyway. Almost nobody marries without having tried the "biological compatibility".

Marriage of close relatives is avoided by family history documents, and blood tests are only able to determine relationships since a few years (DNA) -- the laws are obviously much older and should be abolished.

Partners who want to check into certain diseases can do so anyway, if they desire.

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

We used to have  and Cyprus still has I believe a law requiring that both partners would be tested for Thalassemia minor (also known as trait). I believe the reason was that most people did not perform the blood tests themselves and two people with the trait have a very high probability to give birth to a child with a serious and incurable blood disease.

These tests had and have no value to anyone else (there's no discrimination because of that nor any other kind of complication) and actually inform a couple that they should be more careful with exams and such when they decide to have a child (tense confusion resulting from laziness).

The main reason (I think) the test in not necessary nowadays is that the vast majority of the people are aware of the problem and will do the test anyway. 

I don't see such a test as a violation of my privacy. I guess therefore that it depends on what kind of blood test we're talking about.


----------



## .   1

mirx said:


> I felt your reply a bit dry and agressive, but maybe is just me.


A little from column a and a little from column b.
I find it to be tedious and potentially confusing to have obvious questions posed for whatever reason the poster of the obvious question decides to post the obvious question in the middle of a discussion that has utterly nothing to do with the question at hand and at the same time makes a tired old assumption that is basically dismissive of the question originally posed.
Were you really confused about my reference to America or were you being faecitious? You did not respond even though you quoted my question to you. What other country could I be referring to when I said America?

It is obvious from my question and from many of the responses that the reasons for these tests vary from country to country and I am seking that variation. Not blanket statements that the whole world is basically homogenous on this subject. Were that the case the original question would not exist.

.,,


----------



## loschan

I think it depends on what happens to  this  delicate information. It can be used against those supply negative results.

It is better in my opinion  to  recommend  the  couple involved  to have the blood test done for their own benefit. 

There are people with hereditary illnesses who still go ahead and risk having disabled children. Is this going to be prevented by state control? And some diseases like AIDS take some time to show in one's blood.

On the other hand completely healthy people do have disabled children.


----------



## uchi.m

I used to believe that a couple would decide to marry each other because of love.

Does it mean that, if their blood doesn't follow some specified conditions, they won't be allowed to marry each other?

This pretty much sounds like a modern version of Romeo and Juliet to me...


----------



## faranji

uchi.m said:


> Does it mean that, if their blood doesn't follow some specified conditions, they won't be allowed to marry each other?


 

That's exactly the question I felt was missing all along. Is the blood test merely informative or can actually prevent two people from marrying? I don't quite get it.


----------



## ireney

uchim I can only answer for Greece and Cyprus: regardless of the results, if the other conditions  for being allowed to marry someone were/are met, the marriage was and is allowed. As I said, these tests' only reason of existence was/is informative not prohibitive if that makes any sense.


----------



## uchi.m

So the couple is obliged to undergo these tests for informative issues only? What if the test says "No, your blood doesn't match specific conditions"? Well, I know that the decision of marrying or not is up to the said couple, but probably it will not be a matter of love anymore. Just as I said, a brand new version of Romeo and Juliet...


----------



## ireney

uchi.m I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.  Would you read again what I wrote in both posts? In case it isn't really clear I'd be happy to try to explain more fully


----------



## boardslide315

faranji said:


> Is the blood test merely informative or can actually prevent two people from marrying? I don't quite get it.



It is only done in 4/50 states here, if a couple is told by one that they cannot get married it is only a matter of driving to the next state over. 

However, I imagine something like finding out your partner has AIDS would ruin some of the passion. But then again, a couple who didn't think to test for this in the first place probably should not reproduce anyway, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.


----------



## uchi.m

boardslide315 said:


> However, I imagine something like finding out your partner has AIDS would ruin some of the passion.



If my girlfriend had AIDS but never mentioned it to me, and if we decided to get married, we would get married. If she still did not tell me she had AIDS, I would eventually contract AIDS from her, and eventually my babies would suffer from AIDS, too, but I would still love her, my children, and everything life offers me. That is my personal opinion. Eventually we would die from AIDS, or maybe any other unknown or undiscovered disease, not only AIDS...

Sorry for neglecting Darwin's natural selection. Life is too short.


----------



## rsweet

I think that some state regulations used to require a blood test in order to obtain a marriage license; however, this is no longer true, in California at least. I know that 34 years ago, my husband and I needed blood tests to get a license. My understanding was that this was an attempt to diagnose/control STDs.


----------



## boardslide315

uchi.m said:


> Sorry for neglecting Darwin's natural selection. Life is too short.


Even shorter if you die of AIDS before your first birthday. Anyone who has even the smallest suspicion they might have AIDS should test themselves before they have unprotected sex. 

If your love is strong enough to live through AIDS then it shouldn't have any problem living through a condom.


----------



## orejon2

Hola: 
Esta prueba de sangre fue requerido en 48 estados antes de
la segunda gierra mundial. La prueba se llama the VDRL test
y fue para checar para la sifilis. Hoy dia  se considera una "blue law"
y como ya fue mencionado es un requisito en solo 4 o cinco estados
todavia.  
Atentamente,
orejon2 MD


----------



## Bridgita

boardslide315 said:


> Even shorter if you die of AIDS before your first birthday. Anyone who has even the smallest suspicion they might have AIDS should test themselves before they have unprotected sex.
> 
> If your love is strong enough to live through AIDS then it shouldn't have any problem living through a condom.


 
Hallelujah Boardslide!!! I couldn't have said it better myself . . . . If I married someone who neglected to tell me that they had a terminal disease, which may I add is basically considered a "dirty" disease considering how most contract it, then I would be LIVID!!!!!! And to subject my CHILD to the possibility of being born with AIDS . . . that is wrong, and it is not love. True love . . . that person would tell you, but personally I don't have unprotected without a blood test first anyway.

I think the blood test is a good idea, because there are people out there like I just described, and as someone said earlier, no one should blindly enter into a contract.


----------



## geve

In France a _certificat médical prénuptial_ (premarital medical certificate) is required. The doctor sees both fiancés to check their respective medical history, do a complete check-up and conduct a blood test before delivering this certificate. The detailed results of the tests are given only to the person concerned.

I think it has to do in particular with possible incompatibility between some rhesus... to inform the husband and wife to be that they can't have a baby.


----------



## uchi.m

Bridgita said:


> If I married someone who neglected to tell me that they have a terminal disease, which may I add is basically considered a "dirty" disease considering how most contract it, then I would be LIVID!!!!!!  And to subject my CHILD to possibility of being born with AIDS . . . that is wrong, and it is not love.  True love . . . that person would tell you, but personally I don't have unprotected without a blood test first anyway.
> 
> I think the blood test is a good idea, because there are people out there like I just described, and as someone said earlier, no one should blindly enter into a contract.



About the green part of the quote: that was an extreme situation that I used to express that AIDS patients need love just as anyone else.

About the blue part of the quote: do you mean that AIDS is a dirty disease because it is usually contracted through sexual intercourse, or because it is a signal of one's sexual promiscuity?

About the orange part of the quote: my English fluency is not as good as I would like it to be, but in the end of my post I tried to express that the disease could be any other than AIDS, even those that were not discovered yet. How would any one of a couple be able themselves to tell his/her partner of the illness that they don't know of?

About the red part of the quote: I am very surprised about your viewing of a marriage as some kind of contract. This is not the common sense where I live.


----------



## Bridgita

uchi.m said:


> About the green part of the quote: that was an extreme situation that I used to express that AIDS patients need love just as any one else.
> 
> About the blue part of the quote: do you mean that AIDS is a dirty disease because it is usually contracted through sexual intercourse, or because it is a signal of one's sexual promiscuity?
> 
> About the orange part of the quote: my English fluency is not as good as I would like it to be, but in the end of my post I tried to express that the disease could be any other than AIDS, even those that were not discovered yet. How would any one of a couple be able themselves to tell his/her partner of the illness that they don't know of?
> 
> About the red part of the quote: I am very surprised about your viewing of a marriage as some kind of contract. This is not the common sense where I live.


 
Marriage is a contract! If you die, I have to pay your bills . . . two people uniting as one . . . that's one hell of a contract. You don't think having children is a contract? The difference is that marriage is LEGAL CONTRACT . . . you have to get a LICENSE to marry . . . yeah it's all honky dory love, BUT it's not just about love, it's about partnership and spending your life together.

AIDS is considered dirty for all the reasons you said. I don't make the rules or the opinions of others, I'm merely stating the truth.

And what you said about not being to tell your partner about a disease because you're unaware . . . well my friend . . . . . THERE'S A TEST TO AVOID THAT!!!


----------



## lablady

Speaking mostly for California, it is true that the blood test is no longer required before marriage. Back when blood testing _was_ done, it was possible to get a marriage license without a blood test. However, this "confidential license" cost two to three times the amount of a regular license.

I have worked in laboratories in a couple of states and actually performed this premarital blood testing. It is my understanding that it was _intended to protect the couple's future offspring._ At no time have I ever heard of a couple not being permitted to marry as a result of this testing.

The only test for STDs we performed was one for syphilis. Syphilis is able to cross the placenta and cause severe debilitation or death in the unborn child. The blood test gave the couple an opportunity to be treated before an unborn child was put at risk. The other known STDs at that time were more easily treated and did not cause the severe disabilities in newborns. Back then, AIDS was not yet known.

We also tested women for an immunity to Rubella (also known as German measles). If a woman contracts Rubella during her pregnancy (especially during the first three months), it can cause brain damage or death in the unborn child. The blood test gave the woman an opportunity to be vaccinated if she wasn't already immune.

Lastly, we tested the couple's blood types. This was mostly to alert the couple to potential problems with the Rh factor. Due to advances in the medical field, the Rh factor is not usually a serious problem in newborns of Rh negative mothers, but those moms need to know they are Rh negative to benefit from those advances. Also, "Can you tell me what my blood type is?" is the most common question we get asked in my line of work.  

While these blood tests are no longer required before a couple marries (I suspect it was a cost vs benefit decision), these tests and more are required testing as part of an expectant mother's prenatal care. Again, I'm speaking mostly for California.


----------



## Etcetera

uchi.m said:


> If my girlfriend had AIDS but never mentioned it to me, and if we decided to get married, we would get married. If she still did not tell me she had AIDS, I would eventually contract AIDS from her, and eventually my babies would suffer from AIDS, too, but I would still love her, my children, and everything life offers me. That is my personal opinion. Eventually we would die from AIDS, or maybe any other unknown or undiscovered disease, not only AIDS...
> 
> Sorry for neglecting Darwin's natural selection. Life is too short.


I don't quite understand what you want to say. 
If you love your girl strongly enough to close your eyes on her having AIDS, well, it's your choice. But why should your children suffer?
And I don't think it's good of this girl not to tell her future husband that she has AIDS.


----------



## Kajjo

lablady said:


> I have worked in laboratories in a couple of states and actually performed this premarital blood testing...


Thank you for these insights. It is good to know what we really talk about!



> these tests and more are required testing as part of an expectant mother's prenatal care.


The prenatal care is mostly the same in Germany and of course makes a lot of sense. I guess that the marriage-pregnancy relation is different nowadays: Many people get married but do not have children for quite a time, but many women get pregnant without being married. Thus, the "marriage blood test" is obsolete.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

Kajjo said:


> The prenatal care is mostly the same in Germany and of course makes a lot of sense. I guess that the marriage-pregnancy relation is different nowadays: Many people get married but do not have children for quite a time, but many women get pregnant without being married. Thus, the "marriage blood test" is obsolete.


That's a very good point!
I don't care much about my health, but if I wanted to have a child, I'd certainly make all possible tests to make sure that my health allows me to have a healthy baby.


----------



## mirx

> Were you really confused about my reference to America or were you being faecitious? You did not respond even though you quoted my question to you. What other country could I be referring to when I said America?


Hi, I did not answer to your question because you answered mine with yours. So there's no point in discussing something's that's already been cleared.

And as far as I can see you have gotten many more responses so far, I hope they help you understand why some cultures (governments of those cultures) are keen to applying such examinations.

Cheers.


----------



## Bilma

In Mexico the blood test is a requirment if you want to get married. I really do not know what would happen if the results were not "good".


Edit: I just found this:In Mexico City the blood test are not a requirment any more.

_En el marco de la llamada "revolución administrativa" que ha emprendido el Gobierno del Distrito Federal, la administración capitalina promovió reformas al Código Civil que eliminan trámites como los exámenes médicos prenupciales y la participación de testigos innecesarios en procesos como los matrimonios o registros de nacimientos. _
_En sustitución de los exámenes médicos, las parejas presentarán una manifestación, bajo protesta de decir verdad, de que se encuentran con buena salud; desaparecerá así un requisito que data de 1931_.


----------



## emma42

Bridgita said:


> Marriage is a contract! If you die, I have to pay your bills . . . two people uniting as one . . . that's one hell of a contract. You don't think having children is a contract? The difference is that marriage is LEGAL CONTRACT . . . you have to get a LICENSE to marry . . . yeah it's all honky dory love, BUT it's not just about love, it's about partnership and spending your life together.
> 
> AIDS is considered dirty for all the reasons you said. I don't make the rules or the opinions of others, I'm merely stating the truth.
> 
> And what you said about not being to tell your partner about a disease because you're unaware . . . well my friend . . . . . THERE'S A TEST TO AVOID THAT!!!



AIDs and the people who have it are certainly not considered "dirty" by me, or by anyone I know.  I am surprised to hear such ill-informed prejudice from a forer@.  

I realise this is off-topic, but such a remark has to be addressed.

I don't know whether a Mod would like to remove the relevant threads to a new thread "Is Aids considered "dirty"?"  I don't particularly want to start such a new thread, but these remarks needed to be challenged.


----------



## Bridgita

emma42 said:


> AIDs and the people who have it are certainly not considered "dirty" by me, or by anyone I know. I am surprised to hear such ill-informed prejudice from a forer@.
> 
> I realise this is off-topic, but such a remark has to be addressed.
> 
> I don't know whether a Mod would like to remove the relevant threads to a new thread "Is Aids considered "dirty"?" I don't particularly want to start such a new thread, but these remarks needed to be challenged.


 
Pardon me Emma . . . but AIDS is usually contracted through sex or hypodermic needles . . . and yes, many consider it dirty. With medical technology it can easily be avoided (unless you spouse cheats on you and brings it home) . . .AIDS is no longer contracted through blood transfusions and dirty hospital needles, well not in the US anyway.

http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group55/stigma.htm --Take a little peek Emma . . EVEN EN THE UK . . it says . . sorry to be the one to inform you.

_This quote from a summary of a series of reports into AIDS in several developing countries shows that AIDS is very much stigmatised, and there is a lot of research to show that the stigma is extremely negative. Even in the UK this is still the case. This is probably due to the idea that AIDS is a dirty disease, that you have to do something "wrong" to get it (Songwathana and Mantherson, 1998). This stigma has detrimental effects, as people are reluctant to seek help or to tell others of their status. (Aggleton et al, 1999)_
I don't make the rules or the opinions of others, I'm merely stating the truth.--As I stated earlier . . . I know this will probably be deleted, but I put this here for your benefit Emma.


----------



## emma42

We obviously move in different circles.  In my circle, we consider that people suffering from serious diseases merit sympathy, rather than words like "dirty".


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
As was pointed out, the main purpose (and as far as I know -not entirely sure, the only legal requirement in most places) was to test for Syphilis (VDRL), becuse that was the big scare at the time.
It appears a total anachronism today- and grand hypocricy, if I may say, because we don't require testing for a lot more diseases that we could test for, some with very serious cosequences.
To mind comes HIV, of course, for which we have no mandatory screeneing (because of successfull lobbying by the supposedly 'liberal'/celebrity crowd, I suspect), no national Register, no protection, really, for the many who get infected by knowing partners(this and strict laws againt discrimination at work,etc is needed).
In fact, if we took Public Health seriously (really a joke
in most places), we could prevent a lot of transmission
of many serious diseases (Papilloma virus is a nother good one, also Chlamydia, Herpes...the list is long), this should be done even before anyone
gets sexually active, forget about marriage. I suggest a 
'licence to have sex', how do you like that. 
Talk to me about 'invasion of your privacy' as long as any scoundrel or ignorant can give you a serious or deadly
disease, just like that....


----------



## mirx

emma42 said:


> We obviously move in different circles. In my circle, we consider that people suffering from serious diseases merit sympathy, rather than words like "dirty".




I want to think that you misinterpreted what the other forer@ wanted to say. As I understand it contracting the deasese in considered dirty that is- having unprotected sex, using dirty syrimges, and many anti-hygenic reasons that may trigger the infection. And not that poeple with AIDS are dirty themselves. That's what I want to believe. If she/he indeed meant that they are dirty, well, I can feel nothing but pity about that.


----------



## Bridgita

mirx said:


> I want to think that you misinterpreted what the other forer@ wanted to say. As I understand it contracting the disease is considered dirty that is- having unprotected sex, using dirty syringes, and many anti-hygienic reasons that may trigger the infection. And not that people with AIDS are dirty themselves. That's what I want to believe. If she/he indeed meant that they are dirty, well, I can feel nothing but pity about that.


 
Thank you mirx . . . . that's is exactly what I meant.


----------



## emma42

Read post #27 again.  This is not a thread about whether AIDs is considered "dirty" or not.  If she didn't agree with the adjective, why use it?  I think the forer@ has made her feelings perfectly clear.

Edit:  and I now think she is backtracking because she has realised that what she said was unacceptable.


----------



## mirx

emma42 said:


> Read post #27 again. This is not a thread about whether AIDs is considered "dirty" or not. If she didn't agree with the adjective, why use it? I think the forer@ has made her feelings perfectly clear.
> 
> Edit:  and I now think she is backtracking because she has realised that what she said was unacceptable.




this is completely off-topic but if she indeed exposed herslef in an unacceptable way and now she realizes it. Better to try to clean it then to keep saying the same unacceptable nonsenses.

And going back to the topic. You may send me a PM for this.

Is their any history that you may know of of pre-nuptial blood tests ever taken in the UK?


----------



## emma42

Hello, mirx.  Better to be honest than backtrack.

No, I don't know of any pre-nuptial blood tests currently  required in the UK.


----------



## Bridgita

Bridgita said:


> Hallelujah Boardslide!!! I couldn't have said it better myself . . . . If I married someone who neglected to tell me that they had a terminal disease, which may I add is basically considered a "dirty" disease considering how most contract it, then I would be LIVID!!!!!! And to subject my CHILD to the possibility of being born with AIDS . . . that is wrong, and it is not love. True love . . . that person would tell you, but personally I don't have unprotected without a blood test first anyway.
> 
> I think the blood test is a good idea, because there are people out there like I just described, and as someone said earlier, no one should blindly enter into a contract.


 
What did I say that was unacceptable?  I was speaking in general  . . . I NEVER stated my personal opinion on the disease.


----------



## cuchuflete

As others have stated, this test was once required throughout the U.S.  The motive was simple: detect syphillis.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to educate people planning to have children (or sex) to get tested, whether or not marriage were in their plans, and for the same reason a test for syphillis was once required.

As a blood donor, I get tested for whatever may be in my blood.   If anyone is shy about a pre-nup test, just donate blood, and get the information while doing something useful for others.


----------



## maxiogee

Bridgita said:


> . . .AIDS is no longer contracted through blood transfusions and dirty hospital needles, well not in the US anyway


- aaah, "well not in the US anyway" - don't those six little words just sum up some people's outlook on things - in a nutshell!

=====



Bridgita said:


> _This quote from a summary of a series of reports into AIDS in several developing countries shows that AIDS is very much stigmatised, and there is a lot of research to show that the stigma is extremely negative. Even in the UK this is still the case. This is probably due to the idea that AIDS is a dirty disease, that you have to do something "wrong" to get it (Songwathana and Mantherson, 1998). This stigma has detrimental effects, as people are reluctant to seek help or to tell others of their status. (Aggleton et al, 1999)_
> I don't make the rules or the opinions of others, I'm merely stating the truth.--As I stated earlier . . . I know this will probably be deleted, but I put this here for your benefit Emma.


 
If you read that short piece carefully you will note that the words "a dirty disease" are the words of the scientists, and are not quoted from, or attributed to, any individual. They are giving their own words a tacit attribution and then describing it as being "probably due" - this is bad report writing, to say the least.

======

Could someone in any of those states/countries where blood tests are required of marital please tell us what the requirement entails, what is actually tested for, and if the 'result' of the tests has any legal standing?
Say Mr A and Ms B wish to marry and the Dept of Health in the State of Maxiogee says they failed the blood test, would Ms B have a case for annulment if Mr A lied to her about the result and took her to CloudCuckooLand to marry?


----------



## Bridgita

maxiogee said:


> - aaah, "well not in the US anyway" - don't those six little words just sum up some people's outlook on things - in a nutshell!
> 
> =====I can't speak for underdeveloped countries where I don't know what's going on . . . If I did, then you would certainly comment on that.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read that short piece carefully you will note that the words "a dirty disease" are the words of the scientists, and are not quoted from, or attributed to, any individual. They are giving their own words a tacit attribution and then describing it as being "probably due" - this is bad report writing, to say the least.
> 
> ======
> 
> Whether they were attributed to anyone or not . . . I DID NOT ORIGINALLY WRITE THEM . . . . . . .Hence, there is a stigma!
> 
> I did start a thread regarding this subject with several links that support this, so you can come there and insult me.


----------



## emma42

Bridgita, I am sure most of us are aware that, in certain circles, stigma is attached to people who have HIV/AIDS.  I, for one, do not need links to ascertain this, certainly not in this thread.  Your original "dirty disease" sentence _clearly _illustrates your feelings on the matter.  I see you backtracking, but I do not see anywhere from you a clearly stated opinion that you do _not_ think that AIDs and AIDs sufferers are "dirty" and that you have nothing but sympathy for people with such an awful disease.

It would be refreshing to see less backtracking and quotings of the obvious, and more honesty.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bridgita said:
			
		

> If I married someone who neglected to tell me that they had a terminal disease, which may I add is basically considered a "dirty" disease *considering how most contract it*,


 *emphasis added

*In many parts of the world, the disease is contracted by spouses ignorant of their mates' extra-marital unprotected sex.  Such infections are widespread in many countries.  They do not result from promiscuity, use of unclean needles, or anything other than normal marital sex.  That points to a need for periodic blood tests
for those already married, in addition to unmarried people planning to engage in either or both of marriage and sex.


----------



## Bridgita

cuchuflete said:


> *emphasis added*
> 
> In many parts of the world, the disease is contracted by spouses ignorant of their mates' extra-marital unprotected sex. Such infections are widespread in many countries. They do not result from promiscuity, use of unclean needles, or anything other than normal marital sex. That points to a need for periodic blood tests
> for those already married, in addition to unmarried people planning to engage in either or both of marriage and sex.


 
It's someone's promiscuity in the specific situation you said.  I'm aware that many do contract the disease from no fault of their own, rather their unfaithful spouse or drug-using spouse.  Especially today with the "Down Low," men who lives heterosexual lives with wives and children, but then have sex with other men secretly.  That is the cause for many african american womens' transmission of the disease.  The wives are oblivious to what is going on and they pay for their husband's promiscuity with their lives.


----------



## Bilma

Bridgita said:


> It's someone's promiscuity in the specific situation you said. I'm aware that many do contract the disease from no fault of their own, rather their unfaithful spouse or drug-using spouse. Especially today with the "Down Low," men who lives heterosexual lives with wives and children, but then have sex *with other men* secretly. That is the cause for *many african american womens'* transmission of the disease. The wives are oblivious to what is going on and they pay for their husband's promiscuity with their lives.


 
American, Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Spaniards, Russians too!!!


Not only with other men but with women who are infected too.


----------



## Bridgita

Bilma said:


> American, Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Spaniards, Russians too!!!
> 
> 
> Not only with other men but with women who are infected too.


 
Yes, of course Bilma. I only stated that example because I've seen many shows about it and about the books being written about it, but you are right, it is happening everywhere.


----------



## maxiogee

Bridgita said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> - aaah, "well not in the US anyway" - don't those six little words just sum up some people's outlook on things - in a nutshell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =====I can't speak for underdeveloped countries where I don't know what's going on . . . If I did, then you would certainly comment on that.
Click to expand...


One can speak 'about' rather than 'for' places where one doesn't know what's going on, by informing oneself.


by the way, 
Is "underdeveloped countries" supposed to mean something I am missing here? You have spoken only of the US and the UK so far.





Bridgita said:


> Whether they were attributed to anyone or not . . . I DID NOT ORIGINALLY WRITE THEM . . . . . . .Hence, there is a stigma!
> I did start a thread regarding this subject with several links that support this, so you can come there and insult me.


You might take a moment to stop shouting at me, and in red at that. Then you will note that I didn't attribute them to you. All I said was that the report writers were sloppy.
Quoting some report which says there is a stigma doesn't automatically allow one to say "Hence, there is a stigma!".


----------



## Bridgita

maxiogee said:


> One can speak 'about' rather than 'for' places where one doesn't know what's going on, by informing oneself.
> 
> 
> by the way,
> Is "underdeveloped countries" supposed to mean something I am missing here? You have spoken only of the US and the UK so far.
> 
> HELLO . . . that is why I said earlier "At least in the U.S. . . . I'm responding to the comment you made about a nutshell . . . remember?
> 
> 
> 
> You might take a moment to stop shouting at me, and in red at that. Then you will note that I didn't attribute them to you. All I said was that the report writers were sloppy.
> Quoting some report which says there is a stigma doesn't automatically allow one to say "Hence, there is a stigma!".


 
Wow . . I just learned something . . . Red means yelling . .. I'll have to remember.


----------



## maxiogee

Bridgita said:


> Wow . . I just learned something . . . Red means yelling . .. I'll have to remember.



Read what I wrote.

I said "You might take a moment to stop shouting at me, *and* in red at that"
The capitals are the shouting, the red is tone of voice!  Why else did you use it?


----------



## TRG

I think the question of why the blood tests are required has been answered. If you want more information about why a particular state does, or why they do it, then the best thing to do might be to look up the marriage laws for that state. Otherwise this just becomes an exercise in people going off on tangents. I've been married once and I do not recall if there was a blood test. If so, it wasn't a big deal. I don't recall the matter of blood tests ever being controversial here with regard to marriage. They are somewhat controversial with respect to HIV/AIDS, but even that seems to have died down. So what's the fuss?


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> I think the question of why the blood tests are required has been answered. If you want more information about why a particular state does, or why they do it, then the best thing to do might be to look up the marriage laws for that state. Otherwise this just becomes an exercise in people going off on tangents. I've been married once and I do not recall if there was a blood test. If so, it wasn't a big deal. I don't recall the matter of blood tests ever being controversial here with regard to marriage. They are somewhat controversial with respect to HIV/AIDS, but even that seems to have died down. So what's the fuss?



There's no 'fuss' - there's inquiry.
The states which require these tests are not all alike, I imagine, and may have differing ways of handling 'fail' tests.
I was looking for anyone who knew anything to give me the answers I sought.


----------



## loladamore

> Could someone in any of those states/countries where blood tests are required of marital please tell us what the requirement entails, what is actually tested for, and if the 'result' of the tests has any legal standing?


 
To elaborate on Bilma's post (#36), the _examen prenupcial_ in (most parts of) Mexico serves mainly to inform the couple of each other's blood type (not everyone knows beforehand) in order to take the necessary precautions before starting a family.
Blood is tested for RH, VDRL and HIV, although I gather that the HIV testing is optional. The result is for the benefit of the spouse-to-be (and yourself...). The test is a legal requirement before marriage, but the results are not legally significant in any way.

I think I would like to be aware of the results of such tests before taking on a lifelong commitment with someone; it's important information. On the other hand, I think I would prefer this to take place voluntarily and independently, rather than as a legal requirement. Still, such testing has proibably got lots of people the treatment they required for some disease that they didn't know about.

Saludos.


----------



## uchi.m

Etcetera said:


> I don't quite understand what you want to say.
> If you love your girl strongly enough to close your eyes on her having AIDS, well, it's your choice. But why should your children suffer?
> And I don't think it's good of this girl not to tell her future husband that she has AIDS.



I think you are taking for granted the fact that, once you unawarily contract AIDS, sooner or later you will figure it out no matter whether your partner tell you or not about the disease. However, sometimes the first symptoms of AIDS may take many years to occur. You may even realize you have AIDS too late after you already have had children.

I wanted to say that AIDS patients may be so afraid of being looked down or dismissed that they could hide the disease so badly just for the sake of being loved. That was an extreme situation which came to my mind after I read this:



boardslide315 said:


> However, I imagine something like finding out your partner has AIDS would ruin some of the passion.



Does that mean your passion may fade away if you figure out your partner is ill? What if he/she had hepatitis, cancer or a flu? Would your feelings for him/her change? AIDS is just some disease, it's not the devil.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

. said:


> Hello again,
> My question this time is;
> Why do some parts of America require a blood test for marriage?
> 
> There is nothing like this in Australia.
> 
> .,,



Moderator Note:  Here is the original question.  Discussion has raged  ranged all over and away from the topic, and does not really seem to be progressing.  

From this point on, please confine your comments to the topic.


----------



## geve

I don't understand why there's been so much collective fierceness against someone here, but anyway...


maxiogee said:


> Could someone in any of those states/countries where blood tests are required of marital please tell us what the requirement entails, what is actually tested for, and if the 'result' of the tests has any legal standing?


Lablady's post is very thorough, and the description fits for France too (my post was rather brief).

As for the legal implications of the test, it seems there are none: people simply need to have a paper certifying that they saw a doctor - there are no medical data on the certificate (see this French website for legal medicine).


----------



## orejon2

Thank you lab lady. 
Orejon2


----------

