Thursday, June 07, 2007

Bush Nominates Homophobe for Surgeon General

To paraphrase David Spade, wouldn't we be more surprised at this point if he didn't?
President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., wrote a paper in 1991 that purported to make the medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic, if not downright bruising.

Holsinger, 68, presented "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church's committee to study homosexuality. (Read the paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn't natural or healthy.

...

Noting that Holsinger also belongs to a church that offers a ministry to "cure" gays of the sexual orientation, gay and lesbian rights advocates immediately protested Holsinger's nomination. "His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans," said the Human Rights Campaign in a statement. "It is essential that America's top doctor value sound science over anti-gay ideology."

...

In the context of the larger argument in his church as to whether homosexuality should be accepted, Holsinger presented a medical and scientific argument that anal intercourse was not natural.

"It is absolutely clear that anatomically and physiologically the alimentary and reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems, i.e., the human does not have a cloaca," he said, referring to the posterior orifice that serves as the one opening for genital, urinary and intestinal tracts in amphibians, birds and reptiles. The surgeon general nominee wrote that "even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to 'intuitively' understand these facts."


Does this strike you as the doctor most suited to the job of Surgeon General of the United States?

It's reasonable for a doctor to write an article about risks men and women face from anal sex to educate people who might choose to practice it. To argue that homosexuality is not "natural" (what is it then, supernatural?) by pointing out that "the alimentary and reproductive systems in humans are separate organ systems" is just dumb.

I wonder if he practices oral sex with his wife. Surely he knows the digestive system is a wholly separate organ system as well.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

If anal intercourse or homosexuality were unnatural why would we need religious proscriptions against such behavior. The religious rules against such behavior are proof that these things are naturally occuring and have occured all throughout history.

Additionally, I have been an ass man since puberty. The first time I wacked-off thinking about a girls ass was the 6th grade. No prompting was necessary. Only tight jeans.

Survey's prove that a woman's likelihood to have engaged in Anal sex increases with education. Antedoatal evidence also bares this out. Furthermore study's of people's porn conspumtion show that men who earn more money are into the kinkier stuff. I wonder if one's suseptability to purity arguments is varies inversely with IQ. Think about this who is more likely to eat sushi, college graduates or highschool drop outs?

jewish philosopher said...

I applaud Dr. Holsinger. Let's hope we will see more heros like him.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

The aversion to sexual behaviour which is outside the boundaries of procreation is I think a simple one.

When the rules of sexual behaviour were decided by a couploe of religious doctrines a few thousand years ago, seed was viewed as a precious commodity. Not only the seed to grow crops, but also the seed used to "grow humans."

As one was not wasteful of seed to grow crops, (that is one would not attempt to grow a crop in barren soil), - one was also expected not to try and grow a "human crop" in those places where a crop wouldn't grow.

Those places where a "human crop" would not grow were where seed was sown in other men, where seed was wasted through masturbation and where seed was wasted in animals.

The "seed of crops" and the "seed of humans" were viewed as precious commodities through which wealth, power and abundance could be obtained. So, the ancients devloped laws through which not only were these precious seeds protected from waste, but laws which allowed the owners of seed to know their own fruit.

Men, as owners of the "human seed" as they would have seen it in ancient times, created systems, laws and codes which allowed them to know who was sowing their seed and with whom, and who owned which crop of human fruit.

That's my take on it anyway.

beepbeepitsme said...

Patriarchy and hence the patriarchial religions can be seen in this sense as male based ideologies evolving out of the relationships between fertility, abundance, ownership, and the political power which develops from this.

Half Sigma said...

Considering the problems of AIDS, I don't see how I can disagree with the proposition that homosexual behavior is unhealthy.

Immoral? Yes, it's immoral to risk catching such a deadly disease in order to get some sexual pleasure.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

If people want to have anal sex it should be performed with the same concept in mind that any other sex is performed. That is, it should be performed responsibly.

So, I support people's right to have consensual,responsible,anal sex, as long as it isn't compulsory and it isn't my anus.

Keebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dbackdad said...

In one case we are faced with bigotry masked as science and medicine (Holsinger). In the other case, it's bigotry masked as religious freedom (Jewish Philosopher). I'm embarrassed for both of them. Luckily (for them)there is no death penalty for narrow-mindedness.

jewish philosopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jewish philosopher said...

I am far from being narrow minded, however I am a bit outspoken.

"Like most straight men, girl/girl fun gives him wood." That's overgeneralizing. It depends on who the women are.

beepbeepitsme said...

keebo

RE: "I'd say that our current "crop" of humans is beyond abundant."

I agree. Human beings don't require bronze age cultural precepts in order to be successful or in order to be abundant. But in a time when strength of tribal numbers may have meant the difference between survival or not - these ideas provided a type of "tribal glue" if you will.

I basically see the concept of abstinence which is pushed by the more conservative amongst us in the same light. Nothing fails like abstinence - thus ensuring population increases.

Laura said...

Things like this make me want to curl up in a fetal position and just chant to myself "January 20, 2009... January 20, 2009"

oh, and JP:
That's overgeneralizing. It depends on who the women are.

What exactly does that mean? Fatties need not apply? God doesn't mind the hot lesbians? Get a grip, seriously.

Half Sigma said...

Responsible anal sex may be like responsible drunk driving.

There's a hugely high rate of AIDS in the gay community, and their problem is also the problem of non-gays, because having the virus out there increases the chance of it mutating into something more contagious, and increases the chance that someone might catch it through innocent behavior.

Furthermore, the taxpayer often winds up paying for their medical expenses.

Half Sigma said...

To further clarify, I don't care if gay people do stuff that doesn't affect me. If they want to give each other blow jobs, or masturbate while looking at gay porn, that's OK with me as long as I don't have to see it.

But when they engage in activity that puts ME at risk, and costs ME money, then I have a big problem with it.

Anal sex between gay men is a public health problem that extends beyond the gay community.

Keebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nice Jewish Guy said...

The talmud talks about anal sex (with women) and discusses whether this is a permitted or prohibited practice (many agree that it is permitted).

Personally, I have no problem with responsible homosexual behavior, ie, ensuring safe sex. Homosexuality doesn't threaten me. If the Torah didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't have problem with it.

Intellectually, though, I have seem some compelling arguments that homosexuality, particularly male, can be termed a "disorder", in that evolutionarily speaking it is maladaptive to the propogation of the race. The fact that it is so prevalent does not necessarily negate its being maladaptive. The blogger Orthoprax wrote or commented about this somewhere.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

sigma

Responsible sex (unless you are trying to procreate), involves condom use - which biological hole is involved isn't as important as making sure that the ejaculated fluid cannot transmit an STD.

You do have condoms where you live don't you?

beepbeepitsme said...

sigma

RE: "Anal sex between gay men is a public health problem that extends beyond the gay community."

All unprotected sex is a public health problem.

And everyone breeding irresponsibly impacts on my wallet.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Intellectually, though, I have seem some compelling arguments that homosexuality, particularly male, can be termed a "disorder", in that evolutionarily speaking it is maladaptive to the propogation of the race."

It's only maladaptive if you believe that everyone must breed or if you believe that male homosexuals can't breed.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Wait. Whoa. Hold on now.

What's this tigerboy business? That is keebo, right. I mean there can't possibly be two different people who type everything in bullet points.

Come on now. Come on. Now come on. Now come. Come on now. Come now.

Keebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

How can you have long discussions about atheism?

"So.... is there a God?"

"No."

"Yeah, true that."

The end.

Half Sigma said...

"How people conduct themselves in the privacy of their own bedrooms is: A) none of your business, and B) totally unenforceable."

It most DEFINITELY becomes my business when people's actions in the bedroom spread dangerous diseases with no cure.

Whether a simple law making the activity illegal will stop it is a totally different question and one I certainly didn't address so you bringing it up is irrelevant.

"AIDS is a problem of the entire world. You seem to think that it exists only within the gay community"

That's exactly my point, AIDS has become my problem because of other peoples' irresponsible BEHAVIOR.

In the United States, it's the gay community that is mostly infected with AIDS. Very few heterosexuals in the U.S. have AIDS.

The U.S. can't do much about how people behave in African countries. but it CAN have at least SOME influence over what goes on inside our own borders. We have a least some responsibility to prevent the spread of the disease by trying to discourage the most risky behavior, which is anal sex between gay men.

Justin Waters said...

Aids is the worlds problem only as much as a neigbor smoking in bed is a danger to me if his house catches fire and spreads to mine.

I dont smoke in bed so I can only be a victim of his irresponsibility.

And if you homossexuals had not been so gung ho to threaten doctors against any such disclosure to the significant other of the infected partys status it might have been contained a lot sooner.

See the guy with tuberculosis was tagged as a health danger but your buddies merited some special status to make it seem like all they had was the common cold. So no one with aids could be contained like this guy on the plane. I lived threw those early times so dont try and rewrite history.
It was a gay disease until your facistic efforts to silence all medical discussion if it even mentione homosexuals in the topic so it ended up in the blood supply, sometimes on purpose.

I dont give a flying fuck what you all do in the bedroom. Just stop this bullshit that this was some sort of virus that by happenstance killed more homos then heterosexuals and still is. And by the way, heart disease and breast cancer are still the worlds biggest killers so small wonder you end uf at the end of the line for funds and reasearch.

Justin Waters
Heterosexual Proud and HIV Negative since 1965

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

The male reproductive organ, the penis, is biologically well suited to transmit not only sperm but also bacteria and viruses. Afterall, its effect is similar to a hypodermic syringe.

In the case of the transmission of HIV, the penis is the major contributing factor in sexually transmitted HIV. This is whether the transmission is via heterosexual or homosexual sex. In other words, men spread HIV more effectively than women do.

"Vaginal sex can transmit HIV to either the male or the female partner, but numerous studies in developed countries have shown that in the absence of other risk factors (like STDs) men are two to three times more likely to transmit HIV to women than vice versa."

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/hiv_transmission_0302.htm

The instances of female to female sexual transmission of HIV is virtually nil.

How do we remedy this? Other than making all men abstain from sex (chuckle),and considering that nothing fails so spectacularly as abstinence; it would seem that it would be sexually responsible if all men who are sexually active and who are not in a monogamous relationship - wear a condom.

TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TigerBoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "The receiver of the penis is at highest risk."

I agree. That obviously includes both men and women.

Guys need to be sexually responsible and wear a condom and women need to be sexually responsible and demand that they do so.

As the saying in Australia goes -'If it's not on, it's not on.'

Anonymous said...

Let's cut the crap...

If the excretory apparatus were not aimed solely for elimination, why the does the bowel undergo peristalsis in one direction only? What is it supposed to pull upwards - a light bulb?

Unlike women´s vagina- which is known to grasp a penis and even pull it closer to the cervix during intercourse - the rectum works one way - like it or not. Also, the rectal walls are comparatively thin, and produce relatively little lubrication.