1 edit
And let's play a little thought experiment.
Dr Diggs professes that his views are motivated by a desire to recommend medical best practice.
So, let us hypothesise that new evidence came to light that some same-sex activity was actually positively healthy and more healthy than the same act practised between heterosexuals.
At this point, would Dr Diggs now actively recommend this activity in his clinics?
I haven't even bothered to look up his CV, but I will go out on a limb and suggest that Dr Giggs is not an atheist, and that he is what might be described as a Christian religious conservative.
If I am right, this must clearly be evidence of my emerging telepathic powers.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you looked to see whether it was reasonable for him to use this statistic.
I have no way of knowing, whether its true or not, he does provide references for many of his claims, I would be surprised if he simply made it up.
Or are you effectively saying, his views are the same as mine, therefore his arguments are valid?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieObjectively speaking, while there are risks with the practices mentioned, the practices he mentions are available to heterosexual participants, and, apparently, he discusses only unprotected practices. If Diggs were reporting as a scientist, he would stop after stating the (unprotected) practices, and not associate them exclusively with the sexual orientation of the participants. So he is in effect, without warrant, shifting the issue from the alleged risks of certain practices, to the alleged risks of homosexual orientation.
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse ...[text shortened]... r he discourages homosexual sex as being a health risk? Some on the forum like to think so, why?
Furthermore, a google on his name shows that he is not without criticism for his science and use of sources; criticism that comes from scientists.
http://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/John%20R.%20Diggs%27s%20lies.pdf
...is just one example.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderclearly you are gifted, now if you could just direct your mind ray towards certain forum users, I would be much obliged. Actually Dr. Diggs has a reference where that is exactly what is claimed, that certain homosexual practice is more beneficial than heterosexual. Let me see if i can find it,
And let's play a little thought experiment.
Dr Diggs professes that his views are motivated by a desire to recommend medical best practice.
So, let us hypothesise that new evidence came to light that some same-sex activity was actually positively healthy and more healthy than the same act practised between heterosexuals.
At this point, would D ...[text shortened]... onservative.
If I am right, this must clearly be evidence if my emerging telepathic powers.
The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages — or even more so.*
*Becky Birtha, "Gay Parents and the Adoption Option," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, "Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa," The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story
Originally posted by JS357Dr. Diggs is reporting as a medical practitioner and he's my hero, so you take that back! 😛 Na seriously, he makes the quite valid point,
Objectively speaking, while there are risks with the practices mentioned, the practices he mentions are available to heterosexual participants, and, apparently, he discusses only unprotected practices. If Diggs were reporting as a scientist, he would stop after stating the (unprotected) practices, and not associate them exclusively with the sexual orientation ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/John%20R.%20Diggs%27s%20lies.pdf
...is just one example.
There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.
So you see, he does not distinguish on the basis of protected or unprotected, but between heterosexual and homosexual, for he sees a clear distinction, not because he is biased, but because of the consequences themselves, which he rather excellent and admirably details. If you are going to argue that he should not make a distinction then you will need to explain why despite there being a clear disparity between the consequences of homosexual practice and that of heterosexual, we should ignore it?
Originally posted by Rank outsideryes it was reasonable as he it trying to highlight the disparity between the consequences of heterosexual practice and homosexual practice, he may use whatever statistics he feels are expedient for the purpose. He's my hero!
Have you looked to see whether it was reasonable for him to use this statistic.
Or are you effectively saying, his views are the same as mine, therefore his arguments are valid?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/more-on-phony-expert-john-r.html
yes it was reasonable as he it trying to highlight the disparity between the consequences of heterosexual practice and homosexual practice, he may use whatever statistics he feels are expedient for the purpose. He's my hero!
http://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/John%20R.%20Diggs's%20lies.pdf
http://loldarian.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/and-negro-please-award-goes-todr-john.html
just a few of the many sites exposing your man. he's just another right wing religious nut obsessed with homosexuality.
Originally posted by stellspalfieyeah because lets face it, he fell in the Clyde and came up with a doctorate in his inside pocket. Haters gonna hate!
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/more-on-phony-expert-john-r.html
http://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/John%20R.%20Diggs's%20lies.pdf
http://loldarian.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/and-negro-please-award-goes-todr-john.html
just a few of the many sites exposing your man. he's just another right wing religious nut obsessed with homosexuality.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Its not a question of does and don't, its a question of the disparity which exists. Dr. Diggs (peace be upon him) outlines some aspects, I will produce them for you now,
Robbie, you are obviously a "man of the world" could you tell me
what homosexuals do that heterosexuals do not?
Anything ...
I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages — or even more so.2 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.3 Nevertheless, there are at least five major areas of differences between gay and heterosexual relationships, each with specific medical consequences. Those differences include:
A. Levels of promiscuity
B. Physical health
C. Mental health
D. Life span
E. Definition of "monogamy"
you can read the rest here.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html?vm=r&s=1
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei assume he went to a university like most people do. what is your point? are you saying that all people with doctorates should be trusted and believed? do you believe everything richard dawkins says?
yeah because lets face it, he fell in the Clyde and came up with a doctorate in his inside pocket. Haters gonna hate!
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou are attacking his character rather than the arguments he is making, its an irrelevancy.
i assume he went to a university like most people do. what is your point? are you saying that all people with doctorates should be trusted and believed? do you believe everything richard dawkins says?