The Dim-Post

July 27, 2012

Cui bono

Filed under: policy — danylmc @ 5:37 am

Public health researchers use incident rates of sexually transmitted disease as a proxy for what they term ‘risky sexual behavior’ – unprotected sex with multiple partners. Reviewing some of the literature on same sex marriage, it looks as if legalising same sex marriage leads to a reduction in risky sexual behavior amongst gays and lesbians.

One can only speculate as to why various politicians and organisations (Family First, etc) opposing same sex marriage have such a vested interest in maximising the rate of promiscuous gay sex in our society

About these ads

37 Comments »

  1. my money is on family first-type men having beards.

    Comment by Che Tibby — July 27, 2012 @ 6:18 am

  2. “After a hard day of running the country into the ground, it is the sacred right, Mr Speaker, the sacred right of every minister to visit a local park and have good, hard anonymous sex with young men to work off the stress. This Bill, this disgraceful Bill, is an assault on that sacred right.”

    Comment by Deano — July 27, 2012 @ 7:49 am

  3. It has been a slippery slope since heliocentric orbits.

    Comment by Sanctuary — July 27, 2012 @ 7:58 am

  4. It is strange given that the only demonstrable way to avoid contracting a case of chronic Gay is to be married.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 27, 2012 @ 9:11 am

  5. For lezzers maybe but with two dudes involved if you think getting married will keep those dogs on the porch then you are missing a Y chromosome.

    Though I respect that for you the rampant infidelities and hedonistic trysts that occured when you were just boyfriend and girlfriend were ceased immediately by the almighty sanctity of marriage.

    Comment by King Kong — July 27, 2012 @ 9:15 am

  6. I really hope they can get this through quickly. Perhaps because it is a Nat sponsoring it there will be safe numbers throughout all readings, I know all the Greens, a few Nats and most of Labour will support it.

    Comment by alex — July 27, 2012 @ 9:17 am

  7. Have we had our first “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” sighting yet? Is i-Predict running a book? My money’s on that NZ First guy, the one who has “nothing against gays”.

    But really, this isn’t going to be Civil Unions revisited. That was (by proxy) government versus opposition, and the vote was close. This time the Nats don’t want the fight. I see John Key as a kind of B-movie crime kingpin, muttering to his henchman Joyce … “Make it go away”. Sooner the better.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — July 27, 2012 @ 9:26 am

  8. “Perhaps because it is a Nat sponsoring it there will be safe numbers throughout all readings …”

    Louisa Wall is a Labour MP.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 27, 2012 @ 10:16 am

  9. 8 – Damn I thought it was Nikki Kaye. Back to my bubble of ignorance then.

    Comment by alex — July 27, 2012 @ 10:20 am

  10. “it looks as if legalising same sex marriage leads to a reduction in risky sexual behavior amongst gays and lesbians.”

    Given the huge disparity between the number of (heterosexual, by current law) marriages and the tiny number of civil unions (both homo and heterosexual), it seems unlikely that the uptake of gay marriage (if passed) would significantly alter STD rates.

    Especially given gay marriage uptake is likely to be lower than that of civil unions, due to some in the gay community disliking the historic association between state, secular marriage and religious marriage ceremonies.

    Comment by bob — July 27, 2012 @ 9:04 pm

  11. it looks as if legalising same sex marriage leads to a reduction in risky sexual behavior amongst gays and lesbians

    so conservtives were right after all, it’s better to have marriage than living in sin (and disease).

    Comment by NeilM — July 27, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

  12. Hmmm, checking your link more carefully Danyl, shows these US studies may not support your contention.

    WC Buffie’s ‘Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage’ abstract notes 2 (possible) benefits from gay marriage – improved access to healthcare from marriage health entitlements, and reduction in ‘minority stress’.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21493934

    The former should not apply in NZ, given gay marriage doesn’t confer any additional healthcare entitlements over civil unions. And the latter is long-term, and won’t be changed necessarily by a legal status change.

    It gets worse in Francis, Mialon & Peng, ‘In sickness and in health: Same-sex marriage laws and sexually transmitted infections’. Basically, they say that they can kinda show that US states that *ban* gay marriage have worse rates of syphilis (their proxy for risky gay sex), but not when they take out the California figures. Oh, and there is not enough data to show improvements in syphilis rates in states that *legalise* gay marriage.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22789462

    Next, Hatzenbuehler et al show in ‘Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: a quasi-natural experiment’ that there is a cut in doctor’s trips and costs for gay men in Massachusetts when gay marriage was legalised, but this seems to have been a placebo effect, as it also applied to unmarried but partnered gay men, and even single gay men! That is, the same health benefits could be achieved (perhaps better) by focusing on improved mental health of gay men.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390442

    That seems to be countered by Wight et al in ‘Stress and mental health among midlife and older gay-identified men’, who ‘observed specific mental health benefits of same-sex legal marriage’ for older partnered gay men.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390515

    But their gay-specific conclusions related to ‘sexual minority stress (perceived gay-related stigma, excessive HIV bereavements)’, which may be stronger in their LA study than it would be in NZ, given Louisa Wall’s claims of widespread public support for homosexual relationships here, and the more hostile climate for gay marriage in California (narrowly rejected in a recent referendum).

    I stopped checking after the the first 20 studies – most were not related to gay marriage per se. I’m struggling to see how all this proves your contention that gay marriage in NZ will improve STD rates in the gay community. Was this post supposed to be satire? Sorry about the comment length.

    Comment by bob — July 27, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

  13. Wow Danyl, you’ve really hit the nail into the coffin here. There are multiple reasons why the conservatives in Parliament have such a vested interest in not legalising gay marriage.

    Part of me feels that they should be made to pass it into law to give them their just desserts. They will have no choice but to pass it because of public relations, similar to the PM trying to summon some damage control when he said he’s got nothing personally against gay marriage. But, wait, he’s never ever said that he will vote for it (except for its first reading) because it may be one of those issues that he can palm off on the apparent feelings of people in his electorate. So it’s all up in the air really.

    The other part of me feels that it should be put to a Referendum because it is important that everyone gets to have their equal say on controversial social issues and going by the feelings of one electorate isn’t going to provide a comprehensive viewpoint of the entire country.

    Then there’s the leftist sayings that get to me as well, like “It’s not harming anyone”. It may not be harming anyone but it does normalize homosexuality in our society and, as the majority of people in this country call themselves Christians, maybe we don’t want to tread this path. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s okay. I’ve got nothing wrong with it in the Netherland because it fits there. But then you’ve got to think that it hasn’t really helped that country because now apparently they have decriminalised bestiality or something. I don’t know, I read it on a political blog somewhere I think.

    Comment by Dan Lang — July 30, 2012 @ 11:22 am

  14. I doubt that the Netherlands has a lower rate of christianity than New Zealand, and I also doubt that they have legalised beastiality.

    Comment by kahikatea — July 30, 2012 @ 12:50 pm

  15. I hope the Netherlands haven’t legalised bestiality, but given the logic of the gay marriage advocates, it is possible.

    After all, the liberal argument is that any 2 consenting adults can marry (hence gay marriage as well as hetero marriage), so why not:
    – 3 or more consenting adults? (ie polygamy)
    – a consenting adult and a consenting child? (ie paedophilia)
    – consenting adults related closely to each other? (ie incest)
    – consenting adult and animal? (ie bestiality)

    The last is shaky, as how do animals consent? But all the others follow from the same logic used to justify gay marriage. I’ld love to hear any liberal prove otherwise…

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

  16. - Polygamy/polyamory – why not allow marriage here, what difference does it make to you?

    – A child isn’t deemed capable of giving consent.

    – I believe incest is currently against the law? First step would probably be to legalise the act itself before you start letting brothers and sisters marry. I think there is probably a biological/genetic health argument re the children produced by these relationships too. Although frankly if family want to get their freak on and the parties are actually capable, consenting adults it really doesn’t bother me..

    – An animal can’t consent, what are you fucking nuts?

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

  17. But all the others follow from the same logic used to justify gay marriage. I’ld love to hear any liberal prove otherwise…

    I’ll get right onto it once you’ve explained how they don’t follow from the same logic you use for your own definition of marriage (one man, one woman). You’ve basically got the same problems, ie why not:
    – three or more men and women? (ie polygamy)
    – a consenting adult and a consenting opposite-sex child (ie paedophilia)
    – consenting opposite-sex adults closely related to each other? (ie incest)
    – consenting man or woman and opposite-sex non-human animal? (ie bestiality)

    The fact is, rebutting those isn’t difficult at all, is it?

    Comment by Psycho Milt — July 30, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

  18. @ Pyscho Milt – I’m not proposing those , and I’m not proposing something like gay marriage USING THE SAME LOGIC that would permit all of the above except possibly bestiality. Sorry to shout, but you don’t appear to have actually bothered to read my comment.

    Because IT IS difficult to rebut incest, polygamy, & paedophilia when you say gay marriage is okay *because* the gay couple are 2 consenting adults. Otherwise you would have given us that rebuttal by now (I’m still waiting for it – don’t mind if it’s long).

    For the record – purely pragmatic secular reasons for rejecting such perversions:
    – incest – genetic defects and undermines trust in family relationships which are needed to raise children successfully
    – paedophilia – we as a national community don’t believe a child has the maturity to engage in a sexual relationship, so we forbid it.
    – bestiality – animals can’t consent to anything (as far as we can tell)
    – polygamy – we are biologically made to mate 1 man with 1 woman, not 2 men and 1 woman or 2 women and 1 man, etc. That, and polygamy causes an upset in the ratio of available men:women which can cause serious social instability – ask China where sex selective abortion has created such an imbalance.

    But then, the state *only* recognises any marriage because of the role marriage plays in providing a stable caring family to bring children into the world and raise them to adulthood. Something no gay marriage can ever do – because gay couples scientifically cannot reproduce (without ‘stepping outside’ their gay relationship).

    Now can you please explain why justifying gay marriage by saying ‘who cares what 2 consenting adults do’ doesn’t also extend to the above ‘unorthodox’ relationships also being legalised? Or don’t you have an explanation?

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

  19. I would think it fairly obvious, bob.

    Animals and children aren’t ‘consenting adults’, so the same logic can’t be used.

    As for incest / polygamy (assuming neither children or animals are part of the equation), then the principal issue that arises (apart from inherent grossness of rooting your own family members) with the former is health related – though we don’t prohibit people autosomal recessive or dominant genes from reproducing – and the prohibition of the latter is essentially cultural / religious.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 30, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

  20. Please provide evidence that we are “biologically made to mate 1 man with 1 woman” thanks.

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

  21. In fact seeing as men’s dicks don’t fall off after sex and they continue to find other women sexually attractive despite being in a relationship I’m pretty sure we’re “biologically made” to fuck as many people as possible.

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

  22. Whoops – there we go. Gay marriage lobby group ‘The Queer Avengers’ are now calling for legalised polygamy. 2 mummies and 3 daddies, aye? That won’t cause any societal problems will it?

    The same logic – any number of consenting adults can do whatever they want used to justify polygamy. Now how long before the gay marriage groups demand paedophilia? And incest?

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

  23. @ Gregor W – so you believe in age discrimination? After all, it’s just us nasty ‘traditional marriage’ folks telling the kids they can’t get married at 15, or 12… why? Why should we stop them? Oh the inequality of it all. The discrimination of heartless society ;(

    Totally agree with you on the animals, as I’ve said several times now. No Flossy for Fred…

    And you appear to be saying there is nothing against incestous and polygamous marriages, other than we crazy cultural/religious types. So that’ll be next on the agenda? Maybe an SOP to Louisa’s Bill?

    I hope some sense is trickling in – consent isn’t everything. Or if it is, in a democracy, maybe we could have a referendum on gay marriage? Get the consent of the public for the laws made in our name? What are you afraid of?

    @ Rob – I mean at one point in time, obviously. Duh.

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

  24. Despite multiple posts explaining to you why incest, paedophilia and bestiality are not the same thing as letting gay people marry you keep harping on about these topics.

    Any rational person can see that kiddyfucking and rooting livestock are quite separate issues, but I guess you have to keep presenting this weird extremist fantasy because actually arguing that two consenting adults should only be allowed to “marry” if they are the opposite sex is pretty difficult eh?

    Would it be possible to get a photo of your reaction when this bill passes into law?

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

  25. Personally I think incest is pretty gross but if no one is being coerced and people want to do it I struggle to find a reason to object to it – aside from the mutant offspring thing of course.

    I don’t an epidemic of intra-family fucking would break out if incest was legalised tomorrow.

    My objections to a referendum on the issue of gay marriage is:

    a) would drag the debate on for far, far longer than is necessary, can we please just let gays get married and move on to the rest of the problems facing the country?

    b) its a lot of money to spend just to prove to the ~5% (my estimate) of the country who are homophobes/religious nutjobs that gay people should be allowed to marry. It’s not like you chaps will accept the outcome of the referendum when it doesn’t produce the result you want anyway.

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

  26. so you believe in age discrimination? After all, it’s just us nasty ‘traditional marriage’ folks telling the kids they can’t get married at 15, or 12… why? Why should we stop them? Oh the inequality of it all. The discrimination of heartless society ;(

    Yes I believe in age discrimination if it prevents, oh I don’t know, unlawful sexual connection with a minor, conveniently described in law as a person under the age of 16.
    It has nothing to do with tradition. It’s the law.
    Fundamentally this discrimination exists to ensure that there is in fact equality in a sexual relationship, inasmuch as both parties form that relationship with no implication of duress.
    Otherwise, as per the Crimes Act, it’s rape.

    And you appear to be saying there is nothing against incestous and polygamous marriages, other than we crazy cultural/religious types.

    Clearly you didn’t actually read my comments as I said nothing of the kind.
    But whatever floats your Ark.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 30, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

  27. “I don’t think an epidemic..”

    Fuck, must be all that gay propaganda messing with my mind

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

  28. @ Rob – “Any rational person can see that kiddyfucking and rooting livestock are quite separate issues [from gay marriage]“, yet gay lobby group The Queer Avenger are now openly calling for legalised gay mariage AND polygamous marriage. So not such separate issues huh?

    Besides, at no point have you explained why the REASON given for gay marriage (any 2 consenting people should be able to marry) does not also apply to those other perversions.
    – any 3 consenting people can marry (polygamy)
    – any brother ans sister can marry (incest)
    – any 13 year old and her 58 year old boyfriend can marry (paedophilia)
    If it’s just about consent, who are you, or me, to say they can’t consent to marry? The loogic is the same as that used to justify gay marriage, as the Queer Avengers have shown.

    And you objections to a referendum:
    A) the debate has just started, and you want it shut down? The Bill has only just been drawn…
    B) the cost is minimal if held with next years council elections . And chaps like you said there was minority opposition to S59 too, until the results came through.

    @ Gregor – I was going off this comment by you:
    “As for incest / polygamy … then the principal issue that arises with the former is health related … and the prohibition of the latter is essentially cultural / religious.”

    And I agree with you – age discrimination is okay to block paedophile marriage, because we don’t want duress or immaturity to create bad marriages. But then why is that ‘discrimination’ okay, and ‘discrimination’ against gay couples (by not letting them marry) not okay? Given that as discussed above, the only reason the state recognises marriage is for a purpose (creating children) that gay marriages can never achieve.

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

  29. Bob, your blinkers appear to be getting in the way of you reading my previous comments (and those of others).

    I’m getting sick of typing the same things out again and again so if you really want an answer to your questions you’ll just have to re-read the previous comments on this post and the “sort of standing up for..” one.

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

  30. P.S. As far as I’m concerned the debate on gay marriage was resolved long ago with the passing of the Civil Union Bill into law, this small update which would allow homosexuals to “marry” is just a technicality.

    As fun as it’s gonna be watching you loud-mouth, somewhat incoherent bigots thrash and wail about society going down the gurgler, it frustrates me that a portion of our political bandwidth is being used to re-hash a debate that was settled years ago. I’d much rather this issue just get sorted asap so we can get on with dealing to the rest of the issues this country faces.

    Comment by Rob — July 30, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

  31. “…it frustrates me that a portion of our political bandwidth is being used to re-hash a debate that was settled years ago.”

    Yes Rob, it’s soooo inconsiderate of those of us with different opinions on a Bill just drawn – and not even at it’s 1st Reading – to actually want to debate and hear your explanations for why you think gay marriage is okay. Debate that lasts more than 5 minutes is so 20th century, right?

    And if gay marriage is just a ‘technical’ update on civil unions, how do you feel about British and Canadian cases where legalising gay marriage has immediately seen gay lobbyists demand (and succeed) in forcing all marriage celebrants to carry out gay marriages (against their own religious views) or stop being a celebrant, and seen some adoption agencies close, and seen people getting sacked for expressing opinions opposed to gay marriage? Just the ‘bigots getting the bash’ huh?

    I’ve read and responded to every point you have raised Rob, even if we disagree on some of these points. But still no-one from your team has explained why the reason given for legalising gay marriage (willing consent) does not also apply to legalising other kinds of relationships (polygamy, incest, paedophile marriages). Especially as Queer Avengers are calling for gay and polygamous marriages to be made legal.

    Perhaps this will help us understand each other’s positions better – please complete the following:

    The state should legalise gay marriage (and issue marriage certificates to gay couples) because ……

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

  32. I’m not proposing those , and I’m not proposing something like gay marriage USING THE SAME LOGIC that would permit all of the above except possibly bestiality. Sorry to shout, but you don’t appear to have actually bothered to read my comment.

    I did read your comment, and troubled myself to point out that those things don’t “follow using the same logic” as gay marriage any more than they “follow using the same logic” as heterosexual marriage.

    Because IT IS difficult to rebut incest, polygamy, & paedophilia when you say gay marriage is okay *because* the gay couple are 2 consenting adults. Otherwise you would have given us that rebuttal by now (I’m still waiting for it – don’t mind if it’s long).

    Well, it’s not difficult to rebut, is it? It’s as straightforward to rebut them for gay marriage as it is for heterosexual marriage, and for the same reasons: paedophilia and bestiality don’t involve consenting adults (this is exactly the reason they’re not permitted under the current marriage laws, which is why you can’t marry an opposite-sex child or an opposite-sex animal). There are various arguments against polygamy, which apply regardless of whether marriage is defined as strictly heterosexual or not, and which stand or fall on their own merits, not on which type of marriage is involved. You could perhaps argue that incest isn’t an issue under gay marriage because the couple won’t reproduce, but the same argument would be valid for incest involving at least one infertile spouse under heterosexual marriage – and I’ve yet to see anyone make that argument.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — July 30, 2012 @ 7:56 pm

  33. I’ve read and responded to every point you have raised Rob, even if we disagree on some of these points. But still no-one from your team has explained why the reason given for legalising gay marriage (willing consent) does not also apply to legalising other kinds of relationships (polygamy, incest, paedophile marriages). Especially as Queer Avengers are calling for gay and polygamous marriages to be made legal.

    I am sure Rob will answer for himself, but no you haven’t. Consent is an issue with both children and animals; he has said this, but you are still bringing up paedophilic marriages as an example of the slippery slope.

    What the Marriage Equality bill will allow: Two consenting adults, regardless of gender, to get married.

    Seen on Twitter tonight:

    “If your marriage is endangered by some gays you don’t know getting married, protip: your marriage is already endangered.” – Lew

    I still haven’t seen you give a credible reason why gay marriages shouldn’t be allowed. I really think you could elaborate that one a bit more. You have yet to give any reason, on either thread, that shows why letting consenting adults in a relationship should not be afforded the legal protections of marriage.

    Comment by Vanilla Eis — July 30, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

  34. Bob, your question has been answered by Milt, but it’s really the fact you ask the question that speaks volumes.

    We don’t permit straight man-dog marriage, or daddy-daughter marriage, and ditto for gays. That’s equal and right. But you see gay relationships through a lens of “Other” (or even “Perverted”). It’s possible to rebut that with logic, but not possible in your head. We can’t do anything about that.

    The state should legalise gay marriage (and issue marriage certificates to gay couples) because …… it meets the basic test: freedom, not impinging on others.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — July 30, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

  35. As a side note Bob, the vastly more religious and ‘traditional’ conservative society in Wahabbist Saudi Arabia permits marriage to a female of any age (as young as 8 has been noted though oddly Sharia law does proscribe that the girl has to have reached puberty), polyandry (more than one wife), and, by dint of their tribal system, incest is commonplace.

    They do thankfully, stone gay’s to death however.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 30, 2012 @ 8:36 pm

  36. @ Gregor – thanks for trying to smear me by association with a nasty state of your choice. Kinda irrelevant to civilised discussion on gay marriage in NZ though, aye?

    @ PM, Vanilla, sammy – I think we are talking slightly at cross-purposes ;) I am not talking about gay marriages which are incestous, or gay polygamous marriages. I am saying that you all seem to say the state should set the threshold for marriage as being that the people involved should be adult and consent. But that is a low threshold, and one which ignores the purpose of the state recognising marriage (continuation of society).

    So, hetero polygamous and hetero incestous relationships both meet the test of involving adults and being consensual, but don’t get recognised as marriage. Paedophile marriage would require one of those criteria to be abandoned – that those in the relationship be all adults. All this applies to both gay and hetero relationships.

    So, if we set such a low threshold for gay marriage (adult, consenting), then the only objections to the state recognising those other types of relation ships as marriage would be other objections (like inbreeding, etc). But most of you guys didn’t seem to worried about those other objections, so…..

    Comment by bob — July 30, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

  37. Merely drawing a comparison, Bob.
    Hardly a smear.

    You the guy making the bold statements.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 30, 2012 @ 10:47 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 413 other followers

%d bloggers like this: