University: gay marriage ban=higher hiv rate for gays

[fabulouslyghetto]

http://gaysrights.change.org/blog/view/banning_gay_marriage_increases_hiv_infection

Here's your daily dose of Freakonomics. Researchers at Emory University in Atlanta have finished a study that concludes that states that ban same-sex marriage have higher rates of HIV infection. Which means that the public health consequences of denying equal rights to LGBT people could be disastrous.

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.

Coincidence? I tend to think not. Rather, this seems to be another example of how fostering acceptance and equality spills over and has positive side effects for other areas of society. We've already seen how enacting marriage equality financially benefits states. Now it looks like the benefits to public health are also significant.

Here are the key findings from the Emory study:

-The increase in tolerance for LGBT people that occurred from the 1970s to the mid-1990s reduced HIV cases by about one case per 100,000 people;

-Enacting a same-sex marriage ban is associated with an increase in the estimated HIV rate of 3 to 5 cases per 100,000 people;

-For gay men especially, increases in the number of reported “cruisy areas” correspond to a decrease in tolerance and an increase in HIV, indicating social stigma may drive gay men toward riskier “underground” interactions;

-Increases in the number of formal gay establishments like bars, churches and community centers do not correspond to an increase in HIV

I can only agree. I don't buy the whole "men are sexual creatures" bullcrap people are still spitting out. People wonder why so many gays are hypersexual, what other options are there? Long-term relationships are complicated without legal recognition and for years we've been taught that homosexuality is mostly a sexual characteristic.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Sorry, but this article seems like a bunch of bullshittery to me! Based on this article; "Social Acceptance" will decrease my chances of being infected.

- LOL . We give the Str8s too much credit.

You disagree based on what grounds?

My next thread: Saying someone is wrong without saying why they're wrong doesn't = disprove.

 

[sixthson]

Gay men who are the marrying kind will most likely partner up whether they are denied that right or not. At least that is what I think. It doesn't make sense to me that they would become promiscuous because they cannot marry the man they love. Nothing would stop them from living together monogamously under any circumstances.
But what do I know? I am only a faithful, partnered gay man, who cannot legally get married in my state.

 

[undisclosed1234]

You disagree based on what grounds?

My next thread: Saying someone is wrong without saying why they're wrong doesn't = disprove.

Or quoting an article doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of articles with great sources that claim we're all genetic defects.

It works on the assumption that promiscuity is hampered by marriage which is generally false. I agree, it's a load of bull.

And I fail to see how this will change anyone's mind for gay marriage.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Gay men who are the marrying kind will most likely partner up whether they are denied that right or not. At least that is what I think. It doesn't make sense to me that they would become promiscuous because they cannot marry the man they love. Nothing would stop them from living together monogamously under any circumstances.
But what do I know? I am only a faithful, partnered gay man, who cannot legally get married in my state.

You're thinking too simplisitically. You being a faithful, partnered gay man is just ONE case.

Presenting exceptions doesn't disprove trends, especially obvious ones?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

It works on the assumption that promiscuity is hampered by marriage which is generally false. I agree, it's a load of bull.

The option can help to curve promiscuity, it opens up a new option that many people don't consider for various reasons that people are glazing over.

And I fail to see how this will change anyone's mind for gay marriage.

Congrats on your failure.

 

[hotatlboi]

Gay men who are the marrying kind will most likely partner up whether they are denied that right or not.

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.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

It's probably likely that these states had lower rates of infection even before gay marriage was legal.

Got anything more defined than "probably likely?"

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Fabulous~I just don't think that study goes far enough to be considered as empirical evidence. It seems like the sponsors of the study were trying hard to advance an agenda by using ppl's intolerance.

Of course it's not empirical but the ideology behind it makes sense, if anything they're definitely on to something as far as how america's social, political and cultural landscape affects gay men.

Gays aside, people in general are nowhere near as individualistic as we claim to be. If that's the case then any college student who's ever taken sociology needs to get a refund.

 

[Gussss]

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004

Connecticut joined Massachusetts as one of two states in the U.S. to perform marriages of same-sex couples on November 12, 2008

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Iowa became legal on April 27, 2009

In Vermont, same-sex marriages will begin on September 1, 2009.

In Maine, same-sex marriages will begin on or around September 14, 2009, pending a possible people's veto.

In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.

In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008.

In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states are recognized but not performed

How much "research" could they have done? Only five years worth in Massachusetts, about seven months in Connecticut, less than five months in California, and two months in Iowa. So are they basically saying that Massachusetts has a lower HIV rate than the other 49 states?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

So what's the disagreement here, that social acceptance can have a positive affect on homosexuals?

That promoting long-term relationships would.... encourage long-term relationships and monogamy?

 

[undisclosed1234]

The option can help to curve promiscuity, it opens up a new option that many people don't consider for various reasons that people are glazing over.

This logic implies that there's no promiscuity or spreading of STDs in marriages (which even using the statistics of straight marriage studies is pure BS) or that the only thing keeping gays from being monogamists is the inability to sign a marriage contract.

Not to mention the assumption that the model of the open marriage/relationship is a reach- and that plenty of gays, like straights, don't want to marry and won't be affected by the right.

It may at best be a first step to the gay community developing an alternative from the current sex-driven standard to a more established household, especially if adoption procedures are loosened for gays in the process but to make the leap to "gay marriage = less AIDS" is ridiculous.

That's not how STDs work; that's not how marriage works; that's not how the gay community, or any community will work.

It's equivalent to saying that "banning cigarettes = no more lung cancer". It's a loose correlation; not a causal relationship.

Congrats on your failure.

...Was that supposed to be clever or witty? No wonder this article convinced you...

You posted it to get opinions from people on the matter. You got mine. When you're able to discuss an issue without turning into a petulant 14-year-old post a disclaimer to that effect in your title. We're done here. Learn to think.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

@Fabulous~ I can accept that premise in your #11 post, but the fact that you conceed to this article being more Ideology rather than Empirical is enough to end the discussion. lol

Why does the discussion have to end? The parts I'm cosigning have less to do with numbers, rather the benefits of socio-political acceptance.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

This logic implies

You fell off here. The article states their findings, any implications you find are purely your own. And if they're in college I'm sure they're smart enough to know that promiscuity exists inside marriage.

but to make the leap to "gay marriage = less AIDS" is ridiculous.

Ridiculous? So long-term relationships and monogamy DON'T prevent HIV?

It's equivalent to

I'm officially banning this phrase from JUB. For once it'd be nice to discuss something by its own merit instead of "It's just like." Analogies are an art form.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Guys, read the summary of the article in the OP again. They're not saying legalizing gay marriage prevents HIV. What they're saying is that the people doing the research used gay marriage as a marker to tell them which states were more tolerant. And those are the states that have lower HIV rates.

In other words, Massachusetts was more tolerant of gay people than other states were, even before they legalized marriage. And Arkansas was less tolerant even before they banned it.

So they're just saying, if you live in a more tolerant area, you're less likely to get it. That makes sense to me, since those are exactly the places where the gay community is organized enough to start educating each other about prevention. In other places, gay men are more isolated.

Of course, it's only one study, and this kind of statistical research usually takes quite a few studies before they reach a consensus. So we'll see...

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^Thank God! Someone with reading comprehension abilities. Thanks for articulating it better than I did.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Not to mention that in these God-fearing KKK type places, you might even be too scared to go to the doctor to get a diagnosis...

I remember, back in the day, Oprah did a show about some poor young gay guy from West Virginia who went back to his home town after he came down with AIDS. They welcomed him with loving gestures like draining the town swimming pool after he was seen swimming there. And they were still completely ignorant even with Oprah screaming at them...

 

[Apollo]

I really don't see how the two are connected. But they are the ones with the advanced degress so, wow

But in my honest opinion. It sounds like the crazy "research" done by the anti-gay groups.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Yes. The idea that supporting a group as opposed to ostricizing them would be beneficial to said group, that's just crazy talk.

 

[Apollo]

Guys, read the summary of the article in the OP again. They're not saying legalizing gay marriage prevents HIV. What they're saying is that the people doing the research used gay marriage as a marker to tell them which states were more tolerant. And those are the states that have lower HIV rates.

In other words, Massachusetts was more tolerant of gay people than other states were, even before they legalized marriage. And Arkansas was less tolerant even before they banned it.

So they're just saying, if you live in a more tolerant area, you're less likely to get it. That makes sense to me, since those are exactly the places where the gay community is organized enough to start educating each other about prevention. In other places, gay men are more isolated.

Of course, it's only one study, and this kind of statistical research usually takes quite a few studies before they reach a consensus. So we'll see...

Then why don't they just fucking say that. It would be a lot more effective in getting our point across then the OP article. Maybe I ask too much of people.

But again, I am not the one with the advanced degree. Soooo