Medical Advice With Mixed Messages: Part III
"The Health Risks of Gay Sex": Monogamy and the Social Good
 

February 21 2006
Counterbias.com
MEL SEESHOLTZ


In the “Monogamy” section of “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” it’s asserted that “the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.”

The study cited is “Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.”

Drs. Saghir’s and Robins’ work was also cited in an amicus curiae filed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization that claims homosexuals can be “cured,” and argues that removing homosexuality from the list of “mental disorders” was simply a political move.

Aside from the rather pompous, inflated title of the cited article – “A Comprehensive Investigation” – the study and article are thirty-three years old. Data more than thirty years old must be put into proper historical and cultural contexts, especially when dealing with a subject that has seen profound changes in the intervening decades.

Saghir and Robins did their “comprehensive” study in the early 1970s during the height of the so-called “bathhouse culture” when, as Andrew Sullivan noted in his book Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality, the homosexual subculture “all but submerged itself in a sexualized frenzy.” That “sexualized frenzy” ended rather abruptly when a mysterious retrovirus appeared and, in a matter of years, wiped out “a whole generation of homosexual men: hundreds of thousands of them,” while theocratic activists such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell urged political leaders like Ronald Reagan to do nothing about the epidemic. As Falwell said, “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”

James Dobson made similar assertions about same-sex “monogamy” in his book Marriage Under Fire, where he claimed “Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime – some studies say it is typically more than one thousand – children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going.” But notice the rhetorical sleight-of-hand: not “coupled homosexual”; Dobson shifted the argument to single homosexuals. Multiple partners are also the norm for single heterosexuals, as well as for more than a few married ones.

America’s (heterosexual) divorce rate is about 48 percent. (Surely adultery played a role in some of those divorces). But what about “born again” Christians who are among the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage and often cite “promiscuity” among gays in their reasoning?

On September 8, 2004 – during the height of the pre-election campaign to “save traditional marriage” – the Christian marketing-research Barna Group issued a report entitled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians.” It documented that “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” Barna also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.”

But Dobson’s misrepresentation had only just begun. Similar to assertions made in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” based out outdated studies, Dobson asserted that “some studies say” that homosexuals “typically” have more than one thousand sex partners. The footnote attached to that assertion referenced “A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308-9).”

The title of the text immediately suggests the ruse: “Homosexualities” and “Diversity.” Dobson made a blanket statement about all homosexuals today based on one table in a book about “homosexualities” and the “diversity” of behaviors. The book’s publication date confirms the deception. The data Dobson used was more than a quarter century old and was based on a single table. Like the researchers cited in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Bell and Weinberg gathered their data in the mid 1970s. But even during those pre-HIV “bathhouse” days, the statistics required geographical qualification.

Three hundred to a thousand different sex partners is a lot of people, especially when gays only make up 2-4% of the population and not every one of them lives in a large city where that many different partners would be even remotely possible. Moreover, Dobson further mislead readers by ignoring the “White Homosexual Female” (WHF) and “Black Homosexual Female” (BHF) results in the table, which completely contradict his argument.

More recent statistics further contradict the studies both Diggs and Dobson cited. Demographics from May 17 – the first day gay and lesbian couples could legally be issued marriage licenses in Massachusetts include:

-- 50% of the same-sex couples who applied for marriage licenses had been together for at least a decade;

-- The most predominant age group was 40 to 49 years-old (the median age was 43);

-- 40% of those female couples said they had children in their households.

Following the “Monogamy” section of “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” is a section titled “Cultural Implications of Promiscuity” which begins, “The societal implications of the unrestrained [homo]sexual activity described above are devastating. The ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilizations around the globe” [italics added]

The “definition” of marriage seems more a religious-political statement, especially since history is quite clear that “the ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage” is a relatively new idea, as Stephanie Coontz pointed out in her book Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. Similar documentation is available on several well researched websites. Historically, “marriage” was for property and lineage. Love and sexual cravings were more than not found and fulfilled elsewhere.

Dr. Diggs then asks the following: “If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?” Clearly this is not a medical statement, but another version of the arguments made by the Christian Right and their political minions, such as Pennsylvania Republican senator Rick Santorum – who always gets a 100 percent approval rating from the Christian Right – and whose infamous 2003 interview with the Associated Press about homosexuality and gay relationships contained this:

[if] that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

Dr. Diggs’ statement seemed to link gay sex and pedophilia. One of the most frequently heard stereotypes coming from the Christian Right in relation to gays and their relationships being “detrimental to society” claims homosexuals are inveterate child molesters: crazed sexual perverts who prey upon and recruit children. Lou Sheldon and his Traditional Values Coalition are particularly fond of fostering this, as well as all the most vile stereotypes about gay Americans. (See “America’s New McCarthyism: Homosexual Stereotypes, Myths, and the Politics of Fear,” Popular Culture Review, 16:2 [August 2005)], 83-115 for an analysis of TVC’s use of stereotypes).

The Bush administration recently used the stereotype at the United Nations: “The State Department said Friday that concern over potential support for pedophilia was behind the U.S. vote to exclude two gay rights groups from membership on a United Nations panel.” Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank has formally asked “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to explain why the United States sided with Iran, Zimbabwe, and other repressive governments to exclude two gay rights groups from membership on a United Nations panel.”

But as University of Chicago historian George Chauncey pointed out in Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality, the claim that homosexuals recruit children and the stereotype of them as child molesters are relatively new and grew out of

the anxious years following the Second World War, when communists, criminal syndicates, and other half-invisible specters seemed to threaten the nation and when demonic new stereotypes of homosexuals were created and backed by government sanctions. … The old tropes of anti-Semitic rhetoric … were especially influential in shaping depictions of homosexuals. … And like Jews, they were depicted as a threat to children. In the most dangerous element of this new image, the escalation of antigay policing was accompanied, inspired, and justified by press and police campaigns that fomented stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters.

The linking of Jews and child molestation is as old as Christianity. Such “common knowledge” was immortalized by Geoffrey Chaucer in the tale the Prioress told on the way to Canterbury. Anti-Semitism has a long history in America as well. It seems less than coincidental that the two Americans executed for treason during the McCarthy era – when the U.S. State Department fired more homosexuals than Communists – were Jewish. Homosexuals were a “natural” addition to Jews and Communists especially since they were defined primarily by their sexuality, an uncomfortable topic rarely openly discussed in post-WWII Christian America.

Truth is, there are mentally ill heterosexuals who are child molesters and there are mentally ill homosexuals who are child molesters. Nevertheless, the Christian Right and their allies persist in portraying gay men as crazed child molesters and abusers. But as Kathryn Conroy, assistant dean of Columbia University’s School of Social Work, pointed out in a New York Times letter following the Vatican’s ban on “gay priests”:

What is forgotten in all of the hysteria about priest sexual abuse is that pedophilia is about a sexual attraction to children (most often, regardless of their sex) and about access. …

 

Reliable studies show that pedophiles (those adults who sexually abuse children) are overwhelmingly heterosexual. In fact, homosexuals are statistically underrepresented as those who sexually abuse children. …

 

Further, women have far lower rates of sexually abusing children than men do. So if the church were really serious about protecting children from sexual abuse by priests, gays would not be excluded from the priesthood and ordination would be extended to women.
 

The clinical separation of homosexuality and child molesting began with the appearance of the words “pedophilia” and “pedophile.” From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Pædophilia. An abnormal, esp. sexual, love of young children.

1906 H. ELLIS Stud. Psychol. Sex V. i. 11 Paidophilia or the love of children..may be included under this head [sc. abnormality]. 1926 Med. Jrnl. & Rec. CXXIV. 161/1 One must keep clearly in mind in dealing with pedophilia the distinction between that [and] homosexuality…

 

Hence pædophiliac, -philic adjs., pertaining to or characterized by pædophilia; also as n., a pædophilic person.

1927 … 1960 Spectator 8 July 69 The…survey…shows the paedophiliac to be a type altogether distinct from the adult-seeking homosexual. … 1976 Publishers Weekly 26 Apr. 52/1 He contacted fellow pedophiliacs and through them was able to sample many kinds of young girls.

The “1960 Spectator 8 July 69” reference cited in the OED is particularly pertinent. The quoted excerpt is from Penelope Gilliatt’s lengthy review of the 1960 book A Minority: A Report on the Life of the Male Homosexual in Great Britain by Michael George Schofield. (The book was published under his pseudonym, Gordon Westwood). Ms. Gilliatt made some critical observations in her review that are as applicable to America today as when they were written in 1960 about the British view of homosexuality and treatment of homosexuals. (Not only did Britain decriminalize homosexuality; it has legalize same-sex civil unions.)

It is often said, for instance, that any modification of the law [ie. legalizing homosexuality] would open the flood-gates to a wave of homosexuality; but Mr. Westwood, like everyone else who has really gone into it, can find nothing to suggest that there would be any increase in the incidence of homosexual behaviour…  We are also familiar with the proposition that legalised homosexuality would increase the threat to young boys … Westwood’s research, however, like the Curran and Parr survey in the British Medical Journal, shows the paedophiliac to be a type altogether distinct from the adult-seeking homosexual.

Ms. Gilliatt cited another source and drew a timely conclusion:

After a few hours of reading Marriage: Studies in Emotional Conflict and Growth [edited by Lily Pincus; Methuen, 1960] it becomes obvious that the only really effective way of putting down homosexuality [as a perceived aberration] is marriage.

The “Conclusion” to “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” is a blunt statement: “Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.” Again, this seems more like a socio-political statement than a medical one. It echoes the fallacious economic arguments Dobson made in his book Marriage Under Fire – “The heath care system will stagger and perhaps collapse” and “Social Security will be severely stressed” – that have been repeatedly used by the Christian Right to scare people. “Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers” clearly means economically in terms of health care benefits.

In a report released May 6, 2004, the Human Rights Campaign documented that:

Private employers are instituting domestic-partner health insurance benefits for gay employees at the rate of three companies a day. … The analysis by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that more than 1,000 private employers and colleges and universities added domestic-partner benefits in 2003, 18% more than the year before. Some 40% of the Fortune 500 companies now offer domestic-partner benefits, including nearly 70% of the 50 top businesses. … The report says providing such benefits enhances morale, productivity, recruiting, and competitiveness. One of the study’s authors, Kim Mills, said the 18% rise is an indication that employers are deciding that such benefits are good for business.

“The Dollars and Cents of Gay Marriage,” an article by David R. Francis, appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2004. It also documented that the economic argument is little more than a scare tactic:

“Did you ever wonder why more and more companies, state and municipal governments, and colleges and universities are granting benefits to gay workers’ partners and children? One big reason: It’s cheap. On average, it would add 1 percent – 2 percent tops – to employers’ benefit costs,” says Susan Sandler, editor of a newsletter, HRfocus, for the Institute of Management and Administration in New York. … “Legalizing gay marriage isn’t that costly in economic terms. In fact, research suggests it should save money for federal and state governments.”

It seems same-sex marriage would be good for employers who, presumably, want the best, most competent employees they can get, regardless of with whom they share their bedroom. In fact, “gay brain drain” is becoming more and more of a problem in areas where homosexuals are shunned by employers or communities.

And as for government finances, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office found that allowing same-sex couples to marry would actually boost federal income tax revenues by $400 million per year until the end of this decade mainly because of the so-called “marriage penalty.” Social security payments would rise over time, as would spending on spousal health insurance benefits for federal workers. Other expenditure items would be much lower, however, since spending on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) would fall. The net impact, according to the CBO, would be a federal budget savings of nearly $1 billion per year.

Whether society “approves” of same-sex relationships or not, they will continue to exist as they have throughout human history. Moving forward and accepting the fact of homosexuality and “normalizing” homosexuals’ committed relationships would clearly benefit society, as Jonathan Rauch pointed out in his book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. Damning and condemning a vibrant, productive, contributing part of society is never good for society. It’s always detrimental.

With all due respect, I must further disagree with Dr. Diggs’ assertion that “approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to … society in general.” Jonathan Rauch explained why:

Marriage confers status: to be married, in the eyes of society, is to be grown up. Marriage creates stakes: someone depends on you. Marriage creates a safe harbor for sex. Marriage puts two heads together, pooling experience and breaking impulsiveness. Of all he things a young person can do to move beyond the vulnerabilities of early adulthood, marriage is far and away the most fruitful. We all need domesticating, not in the veterinary sense but in a more literal, human sense: we need a home. We are different people when we have a home: more stable, more productive, more mature, less self-obsessed, less impatient, less anxious. And marriage is the great domesticator.

Civil equality and marriage are indeed the bedrock of a productive, enlightened, rational, thriving society. American society could use more bedrock. Instead, what the country is getting is more misleading rhetoric and spiteful actions from religious, political, and other “leaders” meant to demean, deride, disenfranchise, and hurt gay and lesbian Americans and their families:

With leaders of some of America’s leading anti-gay marriage groups looking on President Bush has signed legislation giving $500 million [total cost of the program is $750 million] to faith-based programs to promote and strengthen opposite-sex marriage. The provision is part of the deficit reduction bill…

 

Under the law faith-based groups are able to circumvent local and human rights laws that are supposed to protect LGBT workers.

 

Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary Wade Horn said that the financial windfall is not intended to specifically oppose same-sex marriage, although the President is a major supporter of a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage in the Constitution.

 

Horn said, however, that none of the money could be used to promote or support same-sex marriage in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal. The money also could not be used to support gay families where civil unions or domestic partnerships are allowed. [italics added]

How outrageously hypocritical for Mr. Horn to say that religious groups that receive federal funding for marriage programs will not be allowed to proselytize or to discriminate against participants based on their “faith perspective.”

==

Read the whole series: Part I available here; Part II here.

---