The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I have explained this to you already.

Dr Diggs says that homosexual sex is harmful from a medical perspective. No caveats.

Not all homosexual sex is harmful from a medical perspective. That is a simple fact. I can go into detail if you like, but you are rather squeamish about this, so I will spare your sensibilities this time.

Dr Diggs igno ou think this is conclusive or not, it is unquestionably evidence in support of the allegation.

No it doesn't, Dr Diggs has been somewhat empathetic in his treatment, he is hardly likely to emphasise practices which have no harmful effects, is he, he is a doctor after all, used to treating ailments. Would you expect the BMA to produce data on a practice if it wasn't harmful? Are they biased and bigoted because they dont? Why would he include in his study of the harmful effects of homosexual sexual activity those practices which are not harmful? To say that he has displayed a hatred and an intolerance towards gays for merely producing data on those practices which he deems harmful from a medical perspective is a nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr. Diggs has not displayed any intolerance of nor a hatred towards homosexuals, you will explain why calling into question the validity of certain studies and how data was gathered or under what circumstances has any relevance to this?

Posters like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello have already explained it to you, repeatedly. You have simply ignored them and the points they have made. There is no need for me to type any of it out again, especially when I might just get a "yawn" or "it's not about me" from you, or you might just blank it out again.

Originally posted by FMF
Posters like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello have already explained it to you, repeatedly. You have simply ignored them and the points they have made. There is no need for me to type any of it out again, especially when I might just get a "yawn" or "it's not about me" from you, or you might just blank it out again.

yawn, more focusing on personalities and appeals to the gallery, have you no shame? I do not accept that he has demonstrated any intolerance or displayed any hatred towards gays by publishing his report, in fact, i think its a kindness that he has exposed those practices which are clearly harmful. If only our gay friends would listen to the advice and stop practising harmful sex.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
To say that he has displayed a hatred and an intolerance towards gays for merely producing data on those practices which he deems harmful from a medical perspective is a nonsense.

What has been demonstrated to you is that his attitude towards homosexuality has distorted the data that he has produced.

Originally posted by FMF
What has been demonstrated to you is that his attitude towards homosexuality has distorted the data that he has produced.

Dont talk nonsense, he cited his references, many of which were obtained by independents.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, more focusing on personalities and appeals to the gallery, have you no shame?

My mention of Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello is not "appeals to the gallery". They are the posters whose post content you have been dodging and ignoring.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do not accept that he has demonstrated any intolerance or displayed any hatred towards gays by publishing his report, in fact, i think its a kindness that he has exposed those practices which are clearly harmful. If only our gay friends would listen to the advice and stop practising harmful sex.

His attitude towards homosexuality has distorted the data that he has produced. This has been demonstrated to you on this thread repeatedly and you have been blanking it out.

Originally posted by FMF
My mention of Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello is not "appeals to the gallery". They are the posters whose post content you have been dodging and ignoring.

more irrelevancy.

Originally posted by FMF
His attitude towards homosexuality has distorted the data that he has produced. This has been demonstrated to you on this thread repeatedly and you have been blanking it out.

no it has not, dont talk nonsense, which data has he distorted. You claim that he has distorted data, what data has he distorted?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it has not, dont talk nonsense, which data has he distorted. You claim that he has distorted data, what data has he distorted?

Posters like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello have already explained it to you, repeatedly. You have simply ignored them and the points they have made.

Originally posted by FMF
Posters like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello have already explained it to you, repeatedly. You have simply ignored them and the points they have made.

so you have made a claim that you cannot substantiate, how droll, You cannot state what data he has distorted, how typical of similar empty assertions of bigotry and homophobia which has marred the thread.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you have made a claim that you cannot substantiate, how droll, You cannot state what data he has distorted, how typical of similar empty assertions of bigotry and homophobia which has marred the thread.

Other posters have already explained it to you, over and over again, and you have simply ignored them and the things they explained to you.

Originally posted by FMF
Other posters have already explained it to you, over and over again, and you have simply ignored them and the things they explained to you.

other posters smosters, you made the claim yet you cannot substantiate it, shoddy, very bungling and shoddy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
other posters smosters, you made the claim yet you cannot substantiate it, shoddy, very bungling and shoddy!

I pointed out that you are trying to blank out what other posters have said to you. And, apparently, you are still determined to blank it all out.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it doesn't, Dr Diggs has been somewhat empathetic in his treatment, he is hardly likely to emphasise practices which have no harmful effects, is he, he is a doctor after all, used to treating ailments. Would you expect the BMA to produce data on a practice if it wasn't harmful? Are they biased and bigoted because they dont? Why would he include i ...[text shortened]... ucing data on those practices which he deems harmful from a medical perspective is a nonsense.

But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.

If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?

The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights. And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.

Do you agree that, if we deemed consensual gay sex to be socially acceptable, then logically there is no reason to deny social acceptability to paedophilia which, by definition, is not consensual?

Do you think someone who tries to create a link between gay sex and paedophilia in this way might be reasonably regarded as homophobic in outlook?