Since it was published just last week, not all of you have had the pleasure of reading The Primary Source's article "Come and Get It: Promiscuity among gays spreads staph infection" (Jan. 30). While the Primary Source is right to share objective research results with the Tufts community - and, moreover, a cogently argued and well-supported opinion on gay rights is also conducive to a healthy discourse - the article I read was neither objective nor healthy.
The article prominently cites a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of California, whose stated objective was "to determine the incidence of a multidrug-resistant MRSA clone (USA300) in San Francisco, and to determine risk factors for the infection."
Looking at medical records from clinics in San Francisco and Boston, the study found an association between men who have sex with men (MSM) and Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). A recent New York Times article also quoted the study as suggesting that the MSM population of San Francisco was, statistically, 13 times more likely to be infected with MRSA than the general population.
What does all of that mean? To the authors of the study, it means that "further research is needed" to determine the best means of stopping the spread of MRSA in densely populated communities such as San Francisco. In the meantime, the authors recommend that people be more vigilant about hygiene.
Why? Because MRSA is not a sexually transmitted disease. It's not HIV/AIDS, despite the echoes of the past seen in the Source's criticism of gays' "dangerous lifestyle." It is a far more general hygiene problem.
As a New York Times article from Jan. 15 notes, many of the deaths associated with MRSA used to be traced almost exclusively to hospitals. The danger posed by MRSA is due both to its virulence and to the difficulty of treating it. But in the opinion of many medical professionals, the high mortality rate is largely the result of our longstanding, systematic abuse and overuse of antibiotics, coupled with our reluctance to keep funding for antibiotic research apace with changes in bacterial strains.
In short, MRSA is a national problem, one that ultimately does not take sexual orientation into account when choosing its victims. The same cannot be said about the Source article, whose victims are almost exclusively gay. For some reason, an article supposedly about a narrow-scoped MRSA study devotes over half of its content to the conclusion that gays are irresponsible. The article tries to vindicate opponents of gay rights, whom it characterizes as realists defending the public interest.
In one example, the author accuses "pro-sodomy activists" of persuading otherwise good, responsible people into accepting the gay "lifestyle." Later, the author suggests that both "science and nature" explain the "danger of homosexuality," clearly establishing the author's scientific credentials.
Finally, for "apologists" like myself, the author recommends a yet-to-be-published book called "The Born Gay Hoax," which supposedly offers a view rarely heard in public discourse - namely, that homosexuality can be "treated." In case you find yourself, as I did, too impatient to buy the book, the author thankfully spends a full third of the article excerpting from it.
It boggles the mind how the Source could see, in a study of MRSA, an opportunity to sermonize about the incorrectness of homosexuality. In what way is being openly gay dangerous, aside from how it exposes you to society's scorn? Why does the Source seem to make little to no distinction between homosexuality and high-risk behavior? To be "gay," must I have unprotected anal sex?
Suppose I choose to have awkward conversations with relatives about girlfriends I do not have. Suppose other people choose to leave home at the age of fifteen because their parents cannot stand their "sinful" lifestyles. Suppose homosexuality were a choice, and millions of gays the world over are just play-acting. What does that have to do with MRSA? What does that have to do with whether or not their private relationships should be respected or even protected by our society?
The author and I agree about one thing: being gay does not excuse you from being careful. But is also does not predispose you to be irresponsible. We are all responsible for our choices, so long as they are actually choices.
It is hard to predict what future studies may hold, but we should always be prepared to engage the facts. Whatever their conclusions, we should always take comfort knowing that studies like the University of California's are motivated by a dual interest in the truth and its capacity to improve people's lives. It saddens me that after reading the Source's take on that same study, I do not feel the same way about its motives.
I do not believe that the Source cares about the truth of MRSA's spread. I also did not detect an interest in gay people's health and well-being in its talking points. Was the Source concerned with the truth when it attributed MRSA's spread to gays' "promiscuity?" When it suggested that homosexuality might be treatable, as though it were a disease akin to MRSA, was it interested in the dignity and well-being of unabashed gays and lesbians?
Despite the incompleteness of the research and the irrelevance of the study to the article's real subject matter, the Source made a choice when it speculated about serious issues. It made a choice when it drew its conclusions in crayon. It made a choice when it trivialized the study with a pun-tastic title. But worst of all, it made a choice to spin an ongoing area of study to support a preconceived social and political agenda.
So I would like to thank the Source, the one publication at Tufts with the credibility to grapple with an issue as complicated as this, for its heartfelt effort to educate the gay community about the risks of its own lifestyle.
Matt Pardo is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
