This is perhaps one of dumbest studies I've heard of in years -- out of Emory, no less:
Bans on same-sex marriage can be tied to a rise in the rate of HIV infection, a new study by two Emory economists has found.
In the first study of the impact of social tolerance levels toward gays in the United States on the HIV transmission rate, the researchers estimated that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises the rate by four cases per 100,000 people.
"We found the effects of tolerance for gays on HIV to be statistically significant and robust - they hold up under a range of empirical models," says Hugo Mialon, an assistant professor of economics.
No wonder! Economists are behind this garbage! Jesus if they had any standards for smart research. Obviously, this is a worthless tidbit of information. There is no cause and effect here. There is only a coincidental correlation. They argue that the mechanism behind the correlation is homophobia, but in reality we can track a variety of factors that actually may be behind the rise in infections: condom fatigue, increasing poverty and homelessness and general growing disparities between rich and poor, abstinence-only sex education mandates, rise in effectiveness of HIV drugs, and a whole host of other complicated factors that make making such an assertion as "Marriage bans lead to HIV rise" a disgustingly ignorant claim.
Economists. Go figure.
(Via Joe.My.God.)
You have to love economist and their irrelevant studies, that propose the most bizarre things.
I wonder if this is what most eco-heads do with their time and research money.
You did read the paper right? It's a bit more subtle than you're making it out, although still chock full of cringeworthy moments:
"We consider formal establishments a proxy for
open, socially mediated, and less risky types of behavior, whereas we consider cruisy areas a
proxy for underground, anonymous, and risky types of behavior."
Jesus.
Recognising their paper is about tolerance, however, and marriage bans is just the hook they're using to get attention - for an agenda I don't particularly mind them pushing - maybe we should cut them some slack...