Hickey Needs to Update His Evidence

Today on 100 Eyes with the Argus Leader, Rev. Hickey attempted to support his position of discrimination.  He continues to make the claim that he wants to give voice to those that disagree with proven science.  Maybe he would like to give credibility to those that don't believe that the earth is round?  Maybe he wants to give equal science time to people that think that the sun revolves around the earth?  The problem with claiming that we should listen to opposing voices, is that those voices should be supported with valid data, and once tested and proven wrong, we should turn away from them.

In his talk on 100 Eyes, Hickey tries to introduce evidence about the dangers of homosexual sex using a study by John R. Diggs.  Patrick Lalley thankful questioned the validity of the study and would not give Hickey traction in using the study because it had not been examined before the broadcast.  Rep. Hickey did mention the author's name (John R. Diggs, Jr.) and allowed me the opportunity to examine the source.

John R. Diggs, Jr. published a study in 2002 on the issue of homosexual sex.    The study relies on evidence and other studies taken as far back as 1978.  It turns out that many of the authors used in Diggs study have a problem with how it was used:

Diggs cites the study a second time and in more detail later in the study. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. The six original researchers who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work. The researchers who conducted the original study had plenty to say about the religious right using it to denigrate gays and lesbians.  (PDF file)

In fact the article by Alvin McEwing, gives an excellent, detailed, and evidence-based rebuttal to Diggs study.

The other issue with the Diggs study is the source himself is biased.  While I would question using a source that works for an agency that has an agenda against people of the homosexual and transgender persuasion (Member, National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council), and has spoken out against HPV, and a person that his living in part speaking to anti-gay, christian groups. In the debate world, we call that a biased source.  That would be like asking the tobacco companies to study the dangers of smoking, or the oil companies to report on risks of global warming, or Republicans to study the EB-5 scandal.  

Did you ever consider that the reason a lot of qualified doctors and scientists have not spoken out against homosexual relationships is that very few of them that are qualified actually think it is an issue?  I think I will back the ruling of the Supreme Court Supreme Court, The American Journal of Public Health that through real research that has been peer reviewed states:

It remains to be seen when other states will follow suit, but the results of this literature review strongly suggest that the legal and social recognition of same-sex marriage are likely to impart more than just symbolic support for the gay community. Embracing marriage equality through education and legislation is sound public health policy supported by evidence-based literature. Legislation to make marriage equality a reality will change, and save, lives.

And of course South Dakota doctors like Dr. Kevin Weiland.