NARTH is an equal opportunity offender (from the Southern Policy Law Center):
That’s kind of like the double take I do when I see Karl Malden or Richard Widmark on an interview show or learn that there are surviving silent film stars- an almost quaint “Damn! There are still some of you guys alive!” reaction. Of course for these people the quaint passes.
Though you have to say one thing for slavery: unemployment was practically nil.
Unless there is something specific about gay men that makes them less violent to counteract it, it’s pretty intuitive that gay couples would have more domestic violence simply because usually men are the perpetrators and there’s 100% more men in the equation.
CarnalK has a valid point (did I say that?) on the double testosterone in gay couples. OTOH, I would speculate (I’m sure there’s data out there but I don’t want to look for it at the moment) that men are also far less likely to tolerate abuse and more likely to fight back, which keeps the situation more in check than there might be in a straight relationship.
OTOH, the stats show a lot of men (no orientation specified) do get the hell beaten out of them in relationships:
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.link
In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
The Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project link estimates the figures at 1 in 4 gay men being victims of domestic abuse. No idea where or how their statistics are derived, but that’s roughly the same as straight relationships if both studies are at all accurate.
Something I took away from Gary Shilts’ book And the Band Played On:
Anal intercourse is a damned efficient vector for the transmission of disease. Before AIDS, there was an “epidemic” of hepatitis C among gay men.
It stands to reason that greater exposure to various diseases would tend to shorten one’s life expectancy.
Of course, not all gay people engage in anal sex. And some hetrosexual couples do. But given the prevalance of the practice among gay men, I’d be willing to wager that the life expectancy for that particular cohort is less than that of the general population.
I think your’re thinking of Hepatitis B. Gay Community News in Boston used to run full-page ads headed something like “An Open Letter to the Gay Community on Hepatitis B.” Hepatitis C was not yet known to exist. The early cases of C were referred to as “non-A, non-B hepatitis,” even into the 1990’s. While Hepatitis B is endemic in some parts of the world, it is sometimes treated as a sexually transmitted disease in the U.S. Hepatitis C, while spread by blood-to-blood contact, is primarily acquired by shared needles, shared coke straws or bills, and unscreened transfusions.
Most of the lesbians I know have extremely healthy diets (less meat, no crash dieting), aren’t going to get pregnant, and are at a very low risk for STDs. If anything, they deserve a discount on insurance rates.
I should also add that it’s pretty standard in the U.S. now for children to receive the Hepatitis A/B vaccination series, so B is not as much of a risk factor for younger cohorts than it used to be.
There’s some studdies shown by a big science magazine (don’t remember what it’s called now), that being married increases the wife’s life span by two years and the husband’s by four. I don’t think being homosexual so much “Shorten Your Life” but being married increases it (marginally).
I don’t think there’s any more “health risks” to being gay as there is to any other kind of marriage except that one little thing about increased life span if you’re married, but that’s no “health risk”.
Also, in a recent newsweek article, a study had shown that athletic performance increases if you have sex with the opposite gender, but that’s more of a laugh than a “health risk to homos” when I watched this being presented by some middle school students.
Again, language doesn’t help us here. I’ve discussed these findings with one of the psychologists involved, and he says that actually studies show that being in a committed relationship is the variable, not being married. The use of uninclusive language in study construction is a big methodological problem, and leads to interpretation problems as well.
It can also be the “lefthanded = shorter lifespan” phenomenon: you recall the studies wherein it was found that lefthanded folk had shorter lifespans? The thing is, people born in the first half of the 20th century were still pressured to “switch hands”, to not be lefthanded. People born in the second half, not so much. The other thing is, people born in the first half of the 20th century have had significantly better opportunity of reaching ages like 60, 70, 80, 90, etc than those born more recently, if you see what I mean.
With your examples and with mine, one could control for the relevant factors, but in order to do that, the relevant factors must occur to one as something that should be controlled for.
If you mean the relationship is more likely to dissolve after the first incident, then I agree. If you are saying it’s less likely to happen in the first place, I would disagree. After all, man on man violence is the norm. The fact that he might fight back doesn’t seem to have dissuaded us men so much so far…
I don’t know much about the psychology of abusers, but the fact that the potential victim could hit back just as hard might be a deterrent. That’s assuming that “finding a partner I can abuse” isn’t a primary characteristic for this sort of person when forming relationships. And it would only apply to physical abuse, of course.
It just seems that way.
Sit and listen to a bunch of Queens dishing for one hour.
Sit and listen to straight guys talking about sports for one hour.
Which hour seemed longer?
The life of a straight person just SEEMS longer. 
Actually, it quotes a study by the American Journal of Public Health. Nice use of the genetic fallacy, though.
Regards,
Shodan
Then you should have quoted the original study directly, because genetic fallacy or no genetic fallacy, quoting anything about homosexuality from NARTH discredits your entire premise, just as quoting anything about Jewish people from the American Nazi Party or Christian Identity discredits your entire premise. Do not quote from organizations that have spent decades lying about their idee fixe and expect to have any credibility on the subject.
I already supplied a definition of the genetic fallacy. We didn’t really need another.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m so glad you go through life with such an open mind that you don’t allow the insuperably BAD reputation of any source of data to taint that data. I sure wish I didn’t have such horrible organizations as NARTH spreading lies and propaganda about me. Must be nice to not have such an organization hating on you. What’s it like?
Sorry, Shodan. I realized just now that I might not be very clear on what I’m actually saying.
I do not dispute that the study may be accurate, because it did not originate with NARTH. But what I’m saying is that linking it through NARTH’s website taints it with NARTH’s reputation. What the study found may not BE wrong, but a whole lot of people are going to assume it is because you linked through the website of a hate organization that’s known to lie through their teeth every time they open their mouths.
Just be aware that NARTH is a deliberately practiced fraud and hate site. It’s like linking to a study from the Department of Labor that shows a preponderance of Jewish workers in the financial industry that’s been hosted at the website of Strmfrnt.
And, lest you think that jayjay is just “going on” here, I will say that on a couple of Christian sites over the last few years, I’ve seen this sort of evidence trotted out on a regular basis by someone intent on “proving the evilness of homosexuality,” and I would say that over 90% of the time, the data, from whatever ostensible source, traces directly back to Paul Cameron or the studies he misrepresented the data from. (A study of ages and causes of death in San Francisco in the 80’s says a great deal about the impact of the AIDS epidemic on public health; quoting it to “prove” that gays die young is a misuse of the data, in precisely the same way as quoting data from AIDS-impacted largely-black Haiti in the same period to “prove that black people die young” would be.)
NARTH, ACLJ, Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council (Cameron’s home these days), “Concerned Women of America”, a couple of other Focus-on-the-Family-related groups, and the American Family Association are among the groups who resort to flatout falsehoods or carefully misrepresent the content of otherwise-true statements and studies in support of what appears to be an anti-gay agenda.