She didn't claim the rate of new infections had risen; she said "HIV/AIDS", which presumably means "HIV/AIDS prevalence", had risen. She is correct about that, as you confirmed. That rise is hardly surprising, though; as far as I know, HIV prevalence has risen every year in every state since HIV was discovered, because there's no cure, it takes a long time to kill you, it's a contagious disease that currently affects a small fraction of the population, and humans have no natural immunity. This means that the increase is not due to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and maradydd's analysis, looking at the rate of change in the rate of change, is the right approach.
Perhaps Amy is parroting someone who actually knew what they were talking about, and left out qualifiers like "40 000 new cases per year in the US"?
For what it's worth, the number of new infections is not the same as the change in the number of cases. The number of cases can increase because people with HIV immigrate from other states (and actually you would expect the same-sex marriage law to encourage this), and it can decrease, or increase by a smaller amount, when people die or emigrate to other states.
A plausible case for legal same-sex marriage increasing the incidence of domestic violence can be constructed as follows:
Legal same-sex marriages will increase the number of same-sex partnerships by making them more attractive to people who might otherwise end up single or with an opposite-sex partner. (Seems likely; in fact, you might even say reducing the number of same-sex partnerships busted up by societal pressures is kind of the point of same-sex marriage!)
Male-male partnerships have higher rates of domestic violence than opposite-sex partnerships. (I think this is empirically supported but I forget where to find the evidence. It is hardly surprising, though; men are, on average, far more aggressive than women.)
The people who commit that domestic violence in male-male partnerships would commit less of it if they were single or with an opposite-sex partner. (Plausible (for example, maybe fighting back increases the amount of domestic violence, and women are less likely to fight back), but I would want to see evidence to support it.)
Either female-female partnerships don't have lower rates of domestic violence than opposite-sex partnerships, or the rate is lower by less than the contribution from male-male partnerships, or the increase in the number of female-female partnerships will be much smaller than the increase in the number of male-male partnerships. (All three of these are plausible.)
Rather than speculating among like-minded people about how those who disagree with us are "noxious harridans", it would probably be more productive to sit down with them and try to empathize with them. Even when they're wrong, and even when they're not 100% genuine. In the long run, that's the only way to resolve contentious issues for real. Getting angry at strawman caricatures we construct in our own minds will just deepen the divisions in our society.
Orson Scott Card wrote a pretty good (clear, logical, somewhat misinformed, based on premises I disagree with) explanation of why he thought gay marriage was a threat to marriage in the Mormon Times: State job is not to redefine marriage, 2008-07-24.
no subject
She didn't claim the rate of new infections had risen; she said "HIV/AIDS", which presumably means "HIV/AIDS prevalence", had risen. She is correct about that, as you confirmed. That rise is hardly surprising, though; as far as I know, HIV prevalence has risen every year in every state since HIV was discovered, because there's no cure, it takes a long time to kill you, it's a contagious disease that currently affects a small fraction of the population, and humans have no natural immunity. This means that the increase is not due to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and
Perhaps Amy is parroting someone who actually knew what they were talking about, and left out qualifiers like "40 000 new cases per year in the US"?
For what it's worth, the number of new infections is not the same as the change in the number of cases. The number of cases can increase because people with HIV immigrate from other states (and actually you would expect the same-sex marriage law to encourage this), and it can decrease, or increase by a smaller amount, when people die or emigrate to other states.
A plausible case for legal same-sex marriage increasing the incidence of domestic violence can be constructed as follows:
Rather than speculating among like-minded people about how those who disagree with us are "noxious harridans", it would probably be more productive to sit down with them and try to empathize with them. Even when they're wrong, and even when they're not 100% genuine. In the long run, that's the only way to resolve contentious issues for real. Getting angry at strawman caricatures we construct in our own minds will just deepen the divisions in our society.
Orson Scott Card wrote a pretty good (clear, logical, somewhat misinformed, based on premises I disagree with) explanation of why he thought gay marriage was a threat to marriage in the Mormon Times: State job is not to redefine marriage, 2008-07-24.
See also my related comment on another friend's blog.