You can lead a horse to water...

I think I found one of the dumbest letters to the editor I have ever seen.

Gay marriage may not reduce certain health threats

Garret Cook

J.D. Haynie’s assessment (June 15 letter) that monogamous homosexual unions could help prevent the spread of STDs is based on much theory and little fact.

The following two paragraphs come from the Family Research Council’s Web site:

The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner. Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. (15. A.P.M. Coxon et al., “Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 877-882.)

The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships (16. G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behavior, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992,” AIDS, July 1993, pp. 863-869, cited in “Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand,” Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.)

For more well documented information, see this informative report:

Garret Cook

His source is the Family Research Council, an organization not known for its scientific accuracy. Now, does anybody care to spot the logical flaw in the letter? It should be obvious to most of you who can manage to spell your own name correctly.

Ah, hell, I can’t resist. The logical flaw is that the rates of disease are the same in exclusive relationships and non-exclusive relationships. We of course know that this is not true. People with more sexual partners will have a higher incidence of social diseases given equivalent sexual practices. If we encourage people to enter into exclusive sexual relationships early in life then the spread of social diseases will slow down. If I only have sex with one person in life, then I have much lower chances of catching a sexually transmitted disease than someone who has fifty relationships. How much buttsex I get doesn’t affect this fact. Do these people even know what a geometric distribution is?

But facts like that do not stop people afraid of two men having buttsex. Now two women having buttsex, that is another video.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Use KwickXML Formatting to markup your comments, acceptable tags: <b> <blockquote> <br> <code> <em> <email> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <i> <li> <list> <ol> <p> <qref> <quote> <s> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul> <url>. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Remember personal info?


Posted by Erin on June 24, 2004 1:38 PM

Logical fallacy aside, it shouldn’t be Garret Cook’s business if everyone who is gay has AIDS anyway, insofar as we don’t have to pay for their medical bills. If we, as a society, value freedom of choice and freedom to volunteerily enter contracts (yes, marriage is nothing more than a legally enforceable contract), then it shouldn’t matter if everyone who enters into a particular contract dies of AIDS so long as they aren’t giving everyone else who isn’t in the contract AIDS. People like Garret Cook annoy the hell out of me because they want to pretent that their moral beliefs make great policy choices, and then they find a bunch of bunk science to try to back it up.