Imagine that. (Hat tip: Nick.)
JUST ONE STUDY: One of the benefits of observing the growth of civil unions and civil marriages for gay couples across the globe is that we are slowly beginning to accumulate data on their broader social impact. The data is still very new and needs to be viewed with a very open mind. But some patterns seem clear enough: the divorce rate, for example, seems to be no different for gay couples than for straight ones. But here’s a study that tries to figure out whether countries with legal options for encouraging stable gay relationships have reduced what the author calls “risky sexual behavior.” The paper requires statistical analysis that lay people will have trouble with; but it covers 25 countries over a couple of decades. (You can download the PDF version.) There are reductions in HIV and gonorrhea rates – but not at any statistically relevant level. But there has been a big drop in syphilis transmission – somewhere around 25 percent. The study tries to control for every conceivable variable and it seems like an honest assessment to me. The conclusion so far? In the author’s words: “The empirical data presented here is consistent with the view that gay marriage reduces risky sexual behavior.” I have to say this makes intuitive sense. Imagine if there were no heterosexual marriage, no social constraints on male sexuality, no social penalties for screwing around. Of course STDs would increase. Including everyone in civil marriage – creating new moral norms for gay relationships – would, to my mind, reduce a whole range of negative social phenomena. So why do conservatives oppose it?
The Dish 