Sexual orientation doesn't predispose someone to an early death. Unprotected sex with an HIV/hepatitis/whatever infected partner does. That goes for gays and straights.

So the question needs to be, do you engage in unsafe sex? Not, are you a homosexual?

According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.

I'd be interested to know what was causing the shorter life expectancy aside from AIDS. What are those mysterious "other causes"?

Bingo.

There are many behaviors that make a person a higher risk. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

If you were to follow his argument logically insurance companies should be courting lesbians and giving them discounts.

Ah, wingnut Walter Williams, again. I thought he had been dispensed with when folks read my link to his argument for the South seceding from the Union (because that was such a good idea before), on Barger's 'Bitch slap Rosa Parks' thread. (Hmmm. Something tells me Barger ignored that link. But, neo-Confederates sympathizers like he and Williams tend to stick together.)

Perhaps the reason Williams works at an obscure college in Virginia is because he is such a sloppy thinker. As both bhw (now on the blogroll at Mac-a-ro-nies) and Steve note, Williams is confusing behavior that has been proven to lead to diseases (smoking) with that, which, in itself, hasn't. The risk factor for HIV is unprotected sex and, usually, lots of it, not being homosexual. A straight Lothario who doesn't use condoms is at a greater risk of becoming infected than a gay man who does. I am skeptical about the vaguely alluded to second study Williams is relying on. I would like to see evidence it actually exists and was done by a reliable source, not some far Right group with an agenda. I believe acturians would get a good chuckle out of Williams' inept argument.

The publication cited exists, but there is no evidence it is peer-reviewed or considered significant in the field. References to the article online are from anti-gay sources mainly.

About the authors of "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?"

William L. Playfair is a fundamentalist Christian pyschologist who goes after movements he believes don't conform to Christianity. He has written against Alcoholics Anonymous for that reason in The Useful Lie. He apparently has gays in his 'good Christian' sights, too.

Kirk Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Assocaition for making up information about homosexual parenting in 1983.

All three are associated with the far Right Family Research Institute.

Blather from the right still depending on discredited "science" after so many years. Tough to kill a lie when it serves their purpose!

It's based on the wildly wrong beliefs of Paul Cameron. Links to the dissection of these "theories" can be found at a number of sites including:

http://qrd.tcp.com/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/

Al, you are still a jackass! :-)

kisses from a queer 39-yr old HIV-neg man in a loving relationship.

So, you would have known about this from the get go, Doc. I knew something was fishy (reporter's instinct, I guess) but it took me nearly an hour to get to the bottom of what was wrong with citing those sources. It is difficult to think of people more discredited than the ones Williams and Barger are relying on. But, you're right, he will just keep right on shoveling crap and hoping people swallow it.

So you are saying that homosexuals do NOT in fact have significantly shorter life expectancies? Are you disputing that this is true? This would be the only relevant issue here.

Doc, this is not an issue about "beliefs." It is an issue of facts. Do homosexuals have statistically significantly shorter life spans? Regardless of theories or beliefs about why, is this statistically true? Not SHOULD it be, not is it fair or just. Is it a fact?

Note that Dr Williams did not offer explanations of why this would be the case- nor would that be his concern. You're all jumping on the HIV thing. That may or may not be part or all of the differences in life expectancy. I don't know.

On the other hand, those who don't want to deal with the root economic issue here so far are not really making much of any kind of legitimate counterargument. Attack the messenger, attack the source. Muddy the waters. Ignore the underlying fact.

Indeed, Diva seems to be coming up with supposed sources mentioned by neither Williams nor myself so she can just denounce us all by association. All the name calling she can conjure up, however, won't change the facts.

Williams argues in favor of federalism and states rights. Therefore, Diva apparently thinks this is not only wrong [ie the federal government should have total control of our lives] but that for arguing otherwise, any observations or analysis from Dr Williams on any subject should automatically be disregarded.

This is very convenient, as it avoids dealing with inconvenient realities and arguments 1000 different ways. Her other genius technique: Just find some unsympathetic or discredited source that has said something vaguely similar to a statement by Dr Williams, then consider that to amount to having disproven anything and everything he says.

Dr Williams is an economist, not a theologian. I've never heard of him going on about Jesus or sin. I've seen no sign ever in anything I've read of him having any kind of personal issues about homosexuality.

None of which gets to the issue. If homosexuality is, in fact, statistically a predictor of a short life, shouldn't a life insurance company take that VERY significant difference into account in writing policies?

More nonsense. I researched the very same source you and Williams cited. You must have missed a lot of school, Barger, because it is obvious you don't even recognize research when you see it. No, the names of the people who did the second study cited were not included in Williams' reference. But, anyone who completed eigth grade (which means you didn't, I guess) would know how to get around that.

The upshot is that his sources are Right Wing Christian zealots who have regularly attacked homosexuals. They are not recognized as legitimate sources in their field -- psychology. So, neither Williams nor you have offered any support for a claim insurance companies should readjust their policies in regard to gays.

Al, when you can get 5 randomly chosen economists in a pit, grease them up (honestly, it's more humane than cock fighting) and get them to agree on anything, well, then sir, you've got something to challenge monster truck rallies.

Economics is a fraud, the people who practise it are fraud charlatans, and delusional fools. Trying to reverse engineer data from a political preconception is hucksterism at best. You know better than that, but you too are a huckster.

Now if only I can get you to deny being a pig-fucker.

I'd be interested to know what was causing the shorter life expectancy aside from AIDS. What are those mysterious "other causes"?

I'll answer my own question. From Paul Cameron's Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do.

The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide--and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.

Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common.

Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident--a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.

Looks like lesbians are toast, too!

How did Mr. Cameron conduct his so-called study, on which Mr. Williams partially bases his claim that homosexuals have much shorter life spans than heterosexuals?

Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers.

He read some obituaries. Very scientific.

First of all Jim, my tastes run to goats, not pigs. Consider that a denial.

Second, we're not talking about economic theories, explanations of phenomenon. You're wrong in saying that economics is baseless, but that's what you ultimately need to do to justify your pinko economics- since they really are baseless ie don't conform to facts on the ground.

Again, the question isn't broad theories or whether this or that group has officially recognized expertise in psychology. Psychology is TOTALLY irrelevant here.

The question is not whether Williams or me or Diva is a nutjob or a molester of barnyard animals. It is not what certification someone has in what topic. It's not whether homosexuality is sinful. It's not a question of political or religious ideology, nor of any other kind of ideology. It is a question of fact.

The basic question is:

Do homosexuals have statistically shorter than average life expectancy?

1) Do you dispute that this is a fact?

2) If it IS a fact, then is there some legitimate reason why this should not be taken into account in the directly relevant area of offering life insurance policies?

The first part is a question of fact.

The second part gets into ideology and politics and philosophy.

My main point is not life insurance or homosexuality, but EPISTEMOLOGY. A fact is a fact. We can argue all day over how to interpret facts, or what the significance of some particular fact might be. However, we have to start with some idea of recognizing things that are facts, whether they are convenient to our wishes or not.

If homosexuals have a shorter life expectancy, then they do. This does not mean that it is fair or nice. It may or may not mean that they "should" pay higher insurance rates. But if it is true, then it is true regardless of whether we like it or not.

Everyone gets to have whatever personal opinion they want, but you do NOT get to have your own personal facts.

To Mac Diva: Actually, the figures are those of *Paul* Cameron, Kirk's father, who is the disreputable, expelled "doctor" whose findings have been debunked numerous times, starting more than 20 years ago. The APAs (Psychological and Psychiatric), the AMA, the American Sociological Association, and other accepted medical organizations have all condemned Cameron and disassociated themselves from his hate-filled findings.

A 1999 Rolling Stone interview with the man showed his feelings about gays. I can not find the article, "The Holy War Against Gays," online, but here is an excerpt:

Like many of his allies, Cameron believes that, if left unchecked, homosexuality will destroy America like God did Sodom. "Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system," says Cameron. "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get - and that is what homosexuality seems to be - then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gay sex, Cameron believes, that if society approves of gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron.

"People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Marital sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does." So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would become the dominant form of sexual behavior.

Please! My interest runs toward delectable persons (who share your gender, but nothing else) such as Josh Marshall and Brian Flemming, who could never be confused with barnyard animals.

The answer to your question is obvious. Until we have a representative array of legitimate data comparing life expectancies of people with different sexual preferences, we will not know.

But, that would not resolve the issue of insurance rates. One needs a reasonable basis for discrimination. American Indians have the shortest life expectancies. But, an insurance company would have difficulty rationalizing discriminating against people of Native American ancestry on that basis. The same situation would apply if homosexuals were proven to have shorter life expectancies than heterosexuals.

bhw, why do we devote time to trying to explain things to such a combative and lazy fellow?

Thanks for unraveling the web of Cameronian conniving for me, Natalie. I was going to send you an emal about Barger's latest if you hadn't shown up.

Even if he is right about all the numbers and "research" wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it is all incomplete data because we live in a society which (largely) still expects the gay community to be in hiding because of a rampant lack of acceptance? Until a large portion of the gay community can live life without persecution, it is unfair to take statistics on a group of people that culture has kept largely in hiding and fearful of hate for most of their natural born lives. Anyone who knows about statistics knows that is very poor sampling.

I was thinking that too, Craig. It sounds like the 'researchers' just assumed anyone not identified in a gay publication, but in a newspaper obituary, was straight. That means they incorporated many gay deaths into the straight category. Even now, years later, one can't know whether a decedent is gay unless he is in the minority that chooses to be identified as having a same sex partner or a member of a gay organization.

Now we're starting to have a real discussion. We had to wade through the irrelevant personal denunciations of some unknown person Diva has invoked from somewhere. And of course a couple more swipes at me.

However, she actually does get to the relevant question in comment 14: One needs a reasonable basis for discrimination. American Indians have the shortest life expectancies. But, an insurance company would have difficulty rationalizing discriminating against people of Native American ancestry on that basis. The same situation would apply if homosexuals were proven to have shorter life expectancies than heterosexuals.

This becomes then a question of what constitutes, as Diva puts it, "a reasonable basis for discrimination."

She says that homosexuality should not be taken into consideration in setting insurance policies EVEN IF gays have shorter life expectancy. Why not?

Gender is a relevant factor which surely gets figured into these things. It's not like you can help that either. If my family has an extensive history of dying from cancers before the age of 50, should they not be allowed to take that into consideration? They're certainly "discriminating" against sick families. Discriminating who is just how much of a risk is what insurance companies DO.

Also, consider breaking down the question into two parts, ethical and political. [What you SHOULD do versus what you should HAVE TO do by law] SHOULD insurance companies consider sexual orientation in setting policies? If not, should they be forced by law to subsidize homosexuals by not being ALLOWED to use that knowledge?

I don't think that insurance companies would have trouble "rationalizing" charging more for Native Americans, as far as by that word you mean "give a rational reason."

What they would have trouble with is POLITICS. They would likely encounter a lot of legal resistance, which is to say the arbitrary intrusion of people who enforce their will by brute force of arms. That opponents of insurance companies might get a judge backed by the force of the US military to agree with you does not necessarily make it rational or just.

Insurance companies are private businesses using shareholders' money in an attempt at making a profit. I would argue that it is not the responsibility of insurance companies to use their shareholders' money to subsidize or counterweight the injustices of nature.

Life isn't fair. I'm sorry if your family medical history or sexual orientation mark you as a bad insurance risk. It is not, however, the responsibility of private businesses to purposely lose money trying to compensate you for the unfairness of life.

There is no proof that homosexuals have shorter lifespans. The idea that only 2% live to old age is rediculous, particularly if they are based on obits in gay newspapers during a period when people died earlier from AIDS than they do now.

There are lots of old gay men and lesbians here in San Francisco and communities across the US.

So while the good do die young, there is no proof homosexuals do.

Steve, I may be wrong here, but are you really considering the possibility that gays may in fact have shorter life expectancies? I can't say authoritatively that they do, and have no vested reason to want to think so. Nonetheless, I don't find the idea unlikely.

I fear that you simply will not truly consider the possibility that (for whatever reasons) maybe gays have lower life expectancy. You simply a priori will not believe it no matter what the source or methodology, no matter what the actual FACTS.

If gays do not in fact present a higher risk for insurance companies, they'll want the business. More dollars for daddy.

If the insurance companies believe that their studies indicate, however, something more in line with the statistics Williams cites, then do they have a right to cast their policies accordingly? Or do they have to get permission from some liberal advocacy group to run their own businesses, or outside approval for what they consider evidence?

I don't necessarily mean to put this all off on you, Steve. It's more of a general response to some of the naysayers here. I may be wrong or overgeneralizing here, but my concern is that people of all ideological stripes are prone in any area of interest to form the correct answer in advance based on ideology, and simply deny any facts that don't support the Correct Answer.

I think this thread settles something I've wondered about for a while. Everyone who has read it understands that I cross-referenced the title of the second article Walter Williams' cited in his column and came up with the names of the authors, except for Al Barger. That is why we are talking about the Camerons and Playfair. Yet, Barger still maintains that I've made up "irrelevant personal denunciations of some unknown person." For the life of him, he simply can't grasp we are discussing the authors of the article because he can't extrapolate from one form of information to another, a key requirement of analytical reasoning. I think Barger is not a person of average intelligence.

To Mac Diva: Apparently some posters, like Walter Williams, either don't check their sources or purposely use discredited ones to push their own agendas. Either way, that is more than pathetic.

Hell maybe the fact that gay people have a shorter lifespan IS true. I don't know. All I know is that these findings are incomplete because they don't have a proper statistical sample due to the persecution of the community they are studying. Without actual proof, then insurance companies would have a tough time proving their actions were anything less than hateful.

I thought the most important point brought up in this thread was what Craig picked up on: How do you know that the obits taken from the 'regular' newspapers didn't include gay people?

If there was a percentage of gay people in the regular newspaper that could really skew the results.

Craig, is your email address classified information? I tried to let you know you have a link at Mac-a-ro-nies, but couldn't find an email address.

you can prove almost anything from a study, if you choose your subjects correctly.
Any chance of info on how many people were involved? how they were chosen? has the study been repeated? if so, what were the results? if not, why not?

Jade, if you read through the middle of thread, that is discussed. The 'methodolgy' was pretty embarassing -- not at all scientific.

Sure, gay people may have shorter lives. There also may be life on Mars. We don't have proof of either.

And you may or may not be aware of this (there is a large gay community in Indianpolis), but gays and lesbians are very diverse. They probably are even more heterogenious than most groups.

Any insurance company would be stupid to charge homosexuals more. The resulting boycott, negative publicity would be far more costly that any savings the company might have even if your hypothesis were true.

So then Mr Rhodes, you would rely on public pressure via threat of boycott. The theory then would seem to be that people will demand that the insurer carefully CHOOSE to ignore that factor, and jack up costs for everybody else, fearing an emotionally motivated boycott would cost them more business than would the increase in prices for everyone else to subsidize the high risk group.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Now, I know you don't want to accept the likely possibility that gays have statistically low life expectancy. Diva suggests that people connected with one study of life expectancy have problems with gays. That does not, however, disprove their work or make them dishonest, nor does it address the other study.

I would be open to seeing counter-evidence suggesting equal or close lifespans between gays and straights, but no such has been offered.

Again, my point is not to demonize gays, but to ask about the politics of group identity and how they impact private insurers. Are private businesses expected to subsidize general societal squishy emotions of wanting to make nice with [INSERT NAME OF FAVORED VICTIM/INTEREST GROUP HERE]?

People with a family history of cancer are going to be denied life insurance, or charged exhorbitant rates. It's not their fault- but it's not Mutual of Omaha's fault either. Men have shorter life expectancy than women, smokers than non. Whether they reflect personal choices or not, those things are statistical indicators of risk. Is it somehow a moral obligation of MoO to charge everybody the same for insurance, no matter the risk factors- young and old, sickly and healthy alike?

Or is the standard supposed to be that the insurers are only allowed to base premiums on factors that don't violate the squishy feelings of all the nice people gathered round to hold hands singing Kum Ba Frickin' Ya?

A few random thoughts on this: I am certain that the life expectancy of male homosexuals took a real hit when the AIDs epidemic really hit in the '80s - just anecdotally, I knew a lot of people who died then but not too many since. I would guess the discrepancy beween gays and the rest of the population has narrowed considerably since. Also, if you factor in lesbians, I would think that would make a huge statistical difference as they would have relatively few AIDS deaths, and women simply live longer.

Another factor would be the "marriage penalty": people not in long-term, committed relationships tend to live shorter lives - another factor in favor of gay marriage.

I would also think for this to have any real actuarial meaning, it would have to broken down much farther than just "homosexual."

This is sorta strange, IMO.
On top of being eerily similar to the question of insurance companies charging black at a higher rate because of the preponderance of sickle-cell, lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infection, so they're quite healthy.

Lastly, homosexuality cannot (at this time) be scientifically determined. There are no medical tests that show that Elton John is gay - but he's still gay. Thus, anyone can simply say that they're straight on their insurance form & if they got AIDS could easily say that it was a one-time-thing & little is accomplished other than stigmatizing gays, sanctioning the punishment of gay sex and trivializing AIDS in an effort to give a negative connotation to gay males (mathematically, that's who'd be the subject).

I'll leave it at that & exit before I get attacked personally.