A ton of right-wing sites have been linking to this Washington Times article since it was printed last month.
A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”
The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.
Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.[…]
The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.
Right away, notice the Times‘ baseless comparison: All gay relationships versus “first marriages in the United States.” That’s apples and oranges – the legitimate comparison would be first gay marriages vs. first straight marriages, or all gay relationships versus all hetero relationships.
But that’s not all that’s wrong with how right-wingers are using this study.
Maggie Gallagher – the anti-gay-marriage-maven of the Marriage Debate blog – has relied a fair amount on this study this week. First, she used it to argue that marriage won’t change gay men:
Neither of these institutions appears to have much effect on the taste for sexual variety among gay men. A new study in the scientific journal AIDS found the average gay man in a long-term relationship had 8 outside partners in a year.
Then – after Dale Carpenter argued persuasively – with studies – that gay men aren’t all that promiscuous after all, Maggie responded:
So Maggie is relying on the Dutch study a lot – and she’s right, it’s not a junk study. But Dr. Xiridou’s study was intended to track means of AIDS transmission – not to be a representative study of promiscuity among gay men. I’m not certain – I haven’t been able to find a copy of the study thus far (there are many scientific journals named AIDS this or that) – but I suspect Maggie’s and other conservatives’ use of Dr. Xiridou’s study is illegitimate, because they don’t understand how the data was gathered.
First of all, Dr. Xiridou didn’t gather her data herself – according to her abstract, “estimates of parameters relating to sexual behavior were obtained from the Amsterdam Cohort Study.” Now here’s where it gets interesting – reading the background of the Amsterdam Cohort Study, we can get some clues of how their data was gathered.
It’s hard to say from this exactly what is happening – but it sure seems doubtful that this data can be used to prove any of the points Maggie wants it to prove. Why not? Let’s count the ways. (If you don’t want to read the whole list, just read point five – it’s a doozy).
- Maggie wants to use this data to prove that the Dutch marriage law, instituted in 2001, hasn’t had any effect on behavior. But it’s not clear if any of the data used in Dr. Xiridou’s study was gathered after 2001.
- It’s very clear that the Amsterdam Cohort Study does not contain a representative sample of Dutch gay men – so, regardless of when the data was gathered, it’s dubious whether any of Maggie’s broad conclusions are supported by this data.
- Nor, as far as I’ve been able to find out, does Dr. Xiridou’s study provide the data in a way that makes it possible to compare married gay men’s behavior with nonmarried gay men’s behavior. But without this information, it’s irresponsible for Maggie to imply that gay married men are promiscuous.
- Dr. Xiridou’s study – at least as I’ve seen it described – reports average behavior. But averages can easily be distorted by a small number of extreme cases. A small number of very promiscuous gay men might raise the “average number of partners” figure very high – but that doesn’t tell us anything about how many partners the typical gay man has.
- At least some of the men in the sample were specifically recruited based on being promiscuous. The first wave of data included only men who had “at least two sexual partners in the six months prior to intake.” In other words, Maggie may be examining data that excluded non-promiscuous men, and using the results to claim that gay men on average are promiscuous. That’s ridiculous.
- Another wave of the study was specifically aimed at young gay men. Might young men be (on average) more promiscuous – and less interested in marriage – than gay men in general? It’s certainly a possibility.
Now, it’s possible that there’s more information, unknown to me, that makes this data applicable the way Maggie (and other conservatives) have been using it. As I said, I’ve been unable to read the study itself thus far.
But if my understanding of this study is accurate, then it’s irresponsible of conservatives to use this study the way they’ve been using it. If so, Maggie Gallagher (who seems to be honest) will no doubt admit her error and stop citing this study. But there’ll be snowball fights at the Alamo before the Washington Times prints a retraction..
I don’t see the relevance of all this blather about promiscuity. Seems to me the question of gay rights should be centered on constitutional issues. Is there a basis in our Constitution for discriminating against gay people? (No) Do they enjoy the same legal rights as other citizens? (Yes)
End of story.
Revise that to read-
SHOULD they enjoy the same legal rights as other citizens? (Yes)
But you don’t get it, gay men have sex with other men! In fact if given the choice of sex with men or women, a gay man would pick sex with men! Why, if gays were to marry, that’s just inviting them to have sex! And what’s worse, they might cheat, which would be a horrible blow against marriage since no straight married person has cheated ever.
Sorry I’m in full sarcastic mode here. I think it has something to do with the fact that I’m watching The Great Race.
I recall Eugene Volokh writing about this study when he was posting about gay promiscuity. If I remember correctly, this study focussed on HIV/AIDS and on very promiscous gay men. Not a random sample at all!
Peter’s comment is right as far as it goes, but even Amp has missed the main objection to using this study as an argument against allowing gay marriage.
Let’s say the claimed implications are completely true, that gay men really do have a strong tendency to have brief relationships and lots of sexual partners.
So what?
Does that mean that there aren’t some gay men who are faithful and committed? NO.
And wouldn’t it be the faithful and committed ones who would be most likely to be seeking marriage licenses? I WOULD THINK SO, wouldn’t you?
Aren’t sexual straying, brief relationships, and even brief legal marriages also characteristic of straights? Hasn’t the divorce rate among heterosexual couples done more damage to the institution of marriage than anything a few committed gay couples could do? YES to both questions.
And lastly, if this study is being used as an argument about gay men, then what about lesbians?
And lastly, if this study is being used as an argument about gay men, then what about lesbians?
Yeah, what about lesbians? I’ve noticed that they don’t come up in a lot of the discussions about homosexual relationships. Most of the studies are of gay men and most of the objections revolve around gay men.
Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. I seldom hear men mention lesbians when they’re talking about gay relationships, but women don’t seem to have a problem talking about both forms of homosexual relationships.
My theory is that too many men are turned on by lesbians and want to be very careful about condemning something they like. Then again, I’m in a cynical mood today.
My theory is that too many men are turned on by lesbians and want to be very careful about condemning something they like. Then again, I’m in a cynical mood today.
Well, yeah, lesbians are hot. But I think it has more to do with the fact that homophobic men moreso have less reason to fear lesbians. The idea that gay men would want to do with them what they want to do with women terrifies them for some reason, but the same doesn’t apply to lesbians, so they lie a bit under their radar.
Or maybe I’m just pulling this out of my ass and it has no basis in reality. As in “Hey there’s something in my ass. It appears to be a theory on the psychology of homophobes. Think I’ll post it.”
So take this with a grain of salt.
Has anybody been able to get a hold of the paper yet?
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Lean Left