The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Would it make any difference to you if I told you that the results were based on a questionnaire that was distributed, inter alia, in a gay pornographic magazine (from which the majority of responses came), that the responses were entirely self-selecting, the response rate was very low and the 16 page survey asked questions of an extremely personal nat ...[text shortened]... evidence of actual gay practice which is representative of the homosexual community as a whole?

here are the doctors words,

"Fisting" refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse. Tears can occur, along with incompetence of the anal sphincter. The result can include infections, inflammation and, consequently, enhanced susceptibility to future STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosexuals in one survey admitted to having participated in this practice.48

he did not claim that it was exhaustive, he has not claimed that it was representative, he merely stated that in a single survey a figure of 22 percent was given, are you denying that this is the case?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So, as I said, you raised the matter of his qualifications. And no one else has attacked them.

I think we have good grounds to question whether he has motives outside of pure medical ones. He is affiliated to the Massachusetts Family Institute which states:

In keeping with the Judeo-Christian values that our society was founded upon, MFI ...[text shortened]... includes homosexuality.

Looks like my telepathy is in good working order, by the way.

irrelevant to the actual findings of his report, ad hominem extraordinaire.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well if the claim is that its not representative then so be it, then why are you bitchin about it as if it is. Is this the best that you can do is to state that a certain piece of data may or may not be representative of the gay or lesbain community, it hardly negates any of the doctors finding and is in fact another irrelevancy, either refute the a ...[text shortened]... evidence to the contrary that 22 percent do not practice fisting? If so then please produce it.

So a doctor, affiliated to an overtly religious body with a strongly anti-gay political agenda, cites bogus evidence to support his arguments and you don't think this is relevant?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So a doctor, affiliated to an overtly religious body with a strongly anti-gay political agenda, cites bogus evidence to support his arguments and you don't think this is relevant?

It is irrelevant to the actual content of his report. He has not cited any bogus evidence, he has made none of the claims that you say he has. He even admits the difficulty of gaining accurate data. His motivation for producing the report was as a health practitioner. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
irrelevant to the actual findings of his report, ad hominem extraordinaire.

If someone is (for example) a known con-artist, then it is not unreasonable to place considerable extra
scrutiny on anything they claim. And to be less inclined to believe what they say without considerable
supporting evidence.

This is not making an ad hominem of any kind.

An ad hominem is to say that someone's argument is wrong because they are making it.

It's not an ad hominem to say that a person isn't qualified (or is biased) and thus their opinion is not sufficient
to sustain an argument.


For example, the Discovery institute is known for publishing papers, and it's members stating opinions, that
are false, and have often been proven false decades ago. They also make straw man arguments against their
opponents, lying about their positions.

It is thus both reasonable, and not (by definition) an ad hominem to simply ignore an argument that sites the
discovery institute as it's authority as they are not reliable or trustworthy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here are the doctors words,

"Fisting" refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse. Tears can occur, along with incompetence of the anal sphincter. The result can include infections, inflammation and, consequently, enhanced susceptibility to future STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosex ...[text shortened]... at in a single survey a figure of 22 percent was given, are you denying that this is the case?

Fisting is done by homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Dr Diggs needs to link the practice of fisting to homosexuality so that he can condemn homosexual sex.

He does this by citing evidence which any decent scientist would reject. So why mention it at all?

It is sloppy and biased work.

Ps None of my gay friends practice fisting. I realise that is not a representative survey, but that doesn't matter, right?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Fisting is done by homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Dr Diggs needs to link the practice of fisting to homosexuality so that he can condemn homosexual sex.

He does this by citing evidence which any decent scientist would reject. So why mention it at all?

It is sloppy and biased work.

Ps None of my gay friends practice fisting. I realise that is not a representative survey, but that doesn't matter, right?

how do you know, have you polled them? would they tell you anyway? All Dr Diggs has done was to state that in one survey the figure was 22 percent, if you are claiming that its not the case, then what evidence do you have, the personal testimony of your gay friends? are you disputing the findings of the survey? which I take it was anonymous? if not, then please can you provide any evidence to the contrary other than the personal testimony of your friends. Its only sloppy and biased because you say so, in reality. why not mention it, because you say its not representative, how do you know and more importantly, how are you going to convince us, or rather me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he's just another right wing religious nut obsessed with homosexuality.

while not directly calling into question his qualifications, it intimates that he has motives outwith his work as a medical practitioner, so granted his qualifications may not have been called into question, but his character certainly was, which is really the point.

his religious and political views are very important and relevant to his study as he quite clearly has an agenda. a man with his education who didnt have an agenda would be much more professional regarding the quality of his data samples and his representation of the data.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
his religious and political views are very important and relevant to his study as he quite clearly has an agenda. a man with his education who didnt have an agenda would be much more professional regarding the quality of his data samples and his representation of the data.

yes he has an agenda, that of a medical practitioner, your assertions to the contrary amount to naught but an attack on his character and are irrelevant. He has at his disposal what he has, lets see if you can find any other data, more representative. Here are some even more damning statistics,

Homosexual Activities in %

US16 US13 US US18 Denmark20 US19 London27 Sydney/London26 Canada25
1940s1977 83/84 1983 1984 1983 1985 1991
ever ever ever in yr in yr in mo in mo last 6mo
oral/penile 83 99 100/99 99 86 67
anal/penile 68 91 93/98 95 92 95 100
oral/anal 59 83 92/92 63 69 89 55/65
urine sex 10 23 29/
fisting/toys 22 41/47 34
fecal sex-eating 4 8
enemas 11 11
torture sex 22 37 37
public/orgy sex 61 76 88
sex with minors 37 23 24/

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is irrelevant to the actual content of his report. He has not cited any bogus evidence, he has made none of the claims that you say he has. He even admits the difficulty of gaining accurate data. His motivation for producing the report was as a health practitioner. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

How do you know what his motivation is?

How do you know this for a fact?

His report fits equally well with someone pursuing a Judao-Chritian belief that homosexuality is a bad thing.

And he happens to be affiliated to a group that explicitly endorses that agenda.

So how do you know what his motives are?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
How do you know what his motivation is?

How do you know this for a fact?

His report fits equally well with someone pursuing a Judao-Chritian belief that homosexuality is a bad thing.

And he happens to be affiliated to a group that explicitly endorses that agenda.

So how do you know what his motives are?

he states it at the outset and i have no valid reason to dispute it. He does not say its a bad thing, he says that its unhealthy, your accusation has a clear moral implication.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, he does not mention anything yet in the preliminaries with regard to what behavior he considers as harmful and to jump to conclusions is no basis for assuming that he is being homophobic, its ludicrous to think so.

That he does not mention anything with regard to what behavior he considers as harmful but instead makes the blanket claim that homosexual sex is harmful is homophobic, which was exactly my point. If you quoted him out of context or misquoted him then maybe it is you that is the homophobe and not him, but the original quote that you started the thread with is clearly homophobic and it is ludicrous to try and deny it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That he does not mention anything with regard to what behavior he considers as harmful but instead makes the blanket claim that homosexual sex is harmful [b]is homophobic, which was exactly my point. If you quoted him out of context or misquoted him then maybe it is you that is the homophobe and not him, but the original quote that you started the thread with is clearly homophobic and it is ludicrous to try and deny it.[/b]

please read the report, its obvious that you have not. The threads not about me, man do you need to wind you people in from da moon.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do you know, have you polled them? would they tell you anyway? All Dr Diggs has done was to state that in one survey the figure was 22 percent, if you are claiming that its not the case, then what evidence do you have, the personal testimony of your gay friends? are you disputing the findings of the survey? which I take it was anonymous? if ...[text shortened]... sentative, how do you know and more importantly, how are you going to convince us, or rather me.

i can concur with rankoutsider having had many gay friends over the years and having lots of frank conversations, fisting is extremely rare (as it is with hetrosexuals as well). anal sex was much more popular, id say the majority had done it at some point, but hardly any did it regularly (roughly the same for my straight friends). oral sex seemed to be the most frequent (and vaginal for my straight friends). ive know a few straight guys that like to receive anal sex from their partners and ive know a fair few gay guys that are turned off by anal sex. its not a black and white world out there, sex and sexuality comes in many flavors. your attempts to pigeon hole people is ridiculous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do you know, have you polled them? would they tell you anyway? All Dr Diggs has done was to state that in one survey the figure was 22 percent, if you are claiming that its not the case, then what evidence do you have, the personal testimony of your gay friends? are you disputing the findings of the survey? which I take it was anonymous? if ...[text shortened]... sentative, how do you know and more importantly, how are you going to convince us, or rather me.

If the majority of responses to a survey on heterosexual attitudes towards sex came from people who received their survey in a pornogrophic magazine, would you be happy if I cited it as representative of heterosexual attitudes generally?