RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/14/2008

But hey, it's only our mortality he's trivializing

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 9-78In a new piece wherein he literally compares the promotion of gay acceptance to advocacy on the subject of smoking crack, the United States' most proudly brutish gay right foes, Matt Barber, has the following to say about an 11-year-old study on the impact AIDS had on the gay male community:

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.

"[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Yeah, so?

Of course, that's all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn't change reality, nor does it eliminate the study's disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation."

Only problem for Matt? The researchers associated with that study didn't issue a mere statement denouncing the misuse of their study. Due to the barrage of inappropriate usage from anti-gay groups worldwide, they released an all-out condemnation of the mindless and unreasoned representations, pointing out why, exactly, their data (collected in the 80's and early 90's) should not be used to demonize gays for a disease that just so happened to hit their community the earliest and hardest:

Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter


Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

But of course the facts concerning AIDS and how the gay community's mortality rates were so drastically hit during the 80's and early 90's matters not to Matt. Neither does the reality that his side could help matters if they stopped the bashing and started to instead encourage responsibility. Rather than looking at the situation reasonably, he chooses to eschew logic, trivialize the researchers' own words regarding their own work as nothing more than "worthless fluff," and refuses to employ any rational qualifiers in his presentation of stats that were culled during the early days of the AIDS crisis. It's almost as if Matt gets such a salacious thrill out of the idea that gay men are punished for who they are that he can't even begin to concede any ground on this point. His aggressively ignorant misfocus is both odd and frightening!

Matt boldly asserts that "[t]he research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation." We reply:

"Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle -- your constant intellectual dishonesty, refusal to fight an unexplained disease rather than to use it as a source of blame, and all-around detestation for all things queerer than pink chiffon leave ZERO wiggle room for any open-minded, big-hearted person to argue that the most fringe members of the religious right are either!"

“Day of Silence” Scam Places Children at Risk [CWA]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

My favorite part of that whole piece of shinola is that he called us "Gay activist flat-earthers."
Funny how they rant and rave against the evils of science until they think it proves a point of theirs.

Posted by: Eric | Apr 14, 2008 4:37:23 PM

I honestly don't know how you do it, Jeremy. Day in, day out combating this tripe from everywhere. It is amazing.

Today I received an email from someone on the far-right that was so out there I honestly thought it was hoax. I can only imagine the kinds of things that must come in your inbox.

Keep up the good work

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Apr 14, 2008 4:42:52 PM

Barber obviously hates gays, so you would think that if the study had any substance, he would want to keep it quiet. Wouldn't he prefer that there be fewer of us?

Posted by: Mike in the Tndra | Apr 14, 2008 5:22:58 PM

What gets me is that I try my best to be understanding of the reasons why people like Matt Barber hates "homosexual behavior" and I know that it's because their version of faith tells them to do so.

But the more they speak and write stuff like this it makes me grow to hate them. I've always thought of myself to be a person who could never hate anyone - but stuff like this just makes it harder and harder.

I really hope you had great vacation because what you do you are more than entitled to one!

Posted by: Alonzo | Apr 14, 2008 5:36:04 PM

what gets me is barber's attitude. he is not a researcher. and just what "pressure" was used on the researchers. talk about your lies.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Apr 14, 2008 6:22:01 PM

Matt Barber spends a lot of time with "undercover" homosexual pornographer, Peter LaBarbera.

Need I say more?

Posted by: Scott | Apr 14, 2008 7:09:09 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails