REDUCES RISK OF HIV - THE TOLERANCE

A recently released report from Emory University suggests that where tolerance of gays is higher, the spread of HIV may be slowed.

This study http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~hmialon/Tolerance_and_HIV.pdf, by Assistant Professors of Economics Andres Francis and Hugo Mialon of Emory, has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed academic publication, but because of the potential impact of their findings on policy decisions related to current discussions about same sex unions, Emory University has decided to promote the findings in a press release http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html.

The findings suggest:

1. Where tolerance of gays is higher, HIV rates are lower
2. Where tolerance is low, there is a higher rate of men having sex with men in underground “cruisy” areas, such as parks, beaches, restrooms and other public areas
3. Levels of tolerance did not effect more formal gay establishments like gay bars, bookstores, gay restaurants and GLBT churches
4. Higher levels of tolerance are positively associated with men reporting having had male partner in the last year.

In the press release, Mialon and Francis were quoted:

“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.

“Laws on gay marriage are in flux and under debate,” added Andrew Francis, also an assistant professor of economics, citing the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage. “It’s a hot issue, and we are hoping that policymakers will take our findings into account.”

Francis and Mialon theorize that the explanations for this correlation may be that higher tolerance induces more low risk gay men to come out, and that tolerance may cause gay men to shift away from anonymous encounters with high-risk individuals in secret venues to less risky sexual behaviors.

Detractors are suggesting this research is nothing more than propaganda and snake oil used to encourage the “disease rich act of sodomy.”