It gets worse:
Additionally, Holsinger and his wife were founders of Hope Springs Community Church which, according to the church’s pastor, ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian. The pastor, the Rev. David Calhoun, said that the church has an "ex-gay" ministry. "We see that as an issue not of orientation but a lifestyle," Calhoun said. "We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle." This type of "ex-gay" conversion therapy has been condemned by almost every major, reputable medical organization — including the American Psychological Association, which issued a condemnation more than 10 years ago.
George Bush nominated this man for Surgeon General.
9 comments:
I'm sure CWY will have it, but Taranto posted on this subject last week (sort of). While you can object to the man himself, it would be unconstitutional to object to the man's church's views. "No religious test..."
Ezzie: I'm objecting to his medical "views." Conversion therapy is a crock.
The Bible has a very successful therapy for gay people. See Leviticus 20:13.
A couple of things. Firstly, with regard to conversion therapy - I haven't read all the sources Keebo cites, but I'm pretty sure they deal with the inutility of any such techniques in turning gays who don't want to be turned. Holsinger's church on the other hand does not apear to be doing any such thing - they're offering support and counselling to gays who *do* want to change. Even if you still think it is doomed to fail in these circumstances can't you at least see that ethically there is no comparison?
That said, I do think I understand where JA is coming from on this, this is really strange - though I will add that I don't know anything about the guy's background and for all I know he may be highly qualified in other respects.
However - isn't there a bit of a double standard operating here? JA opens the post before this one with the line "New rule: any organization that puts a curse on others is to be laughed at and dismissed as crazed lunatics. (With apologies to Bill Maher, whose new rules I love.)"
Okay, so I clicked through to the "new rules", and here's the very first one -
"New Rule: "The View" must be renamed, "Morning Cat Fight." Barbara, Joy, get out of the way and let these two have at it! I want to see Rosie introduce the Republican chick to lesbianism, the hard way."
So, let's get this straight. JA is appalled at the idea of the Bush admistration appointing someone to high office who believes that gays who are offered love and support can be helped to become heterosexual if they wish(even if there is no basis in psychology for such a view), but "loves" the idea of forcible rape (presumably what "the hard way" is referring to) being used to turn a right wing heterosexual gay? Isn't there something of a double standard here, or does being a liberal give you an automatic pass on this sort of thing?
(And yes, I know the defence will be that Maher is a satirist and not a politician, however I was still brought up to believe that rape is not a laughing matter.)
Random
Random:
(BTW, why don't you get a blogger account? They're free.)
Firstly, with regard to conversion therapy - I haven't read all the sources Keebo cites, but I'm pretty sure they deal with the inutility of any such techniques in turning gays who don't want to be turned.
The APA is obviously talking about voluntary conversion therapy. It doesn't work for those who want to be straight. These are the facts as they understand them.
And this isn't some arbitrary test of Holsinger's moral character. He's nominated to be surgeon general of the United States. If he's known to put ideology over sound medicine, it's pretty clear to me that he's unfit for the job, or at the very least that there are hundreds of thousands of doctors more qualified than he.
So, let's get this straight. JA is appalled at the idea of the Bush admistration appointing someone to high office who believes that gays who are offered love and support can be helped to become heterosexual if they wish(even if there is no basis in psychology for such a view), but "loves" the idea of forcible rape (presumably what "the hard way" is referring to) being used to turn a right wing heterosexual gay? Isn't there something of a double standard here, or does being a liberal give you an automatic pass on this sort of thing?
Come on, don't be obtuse. Obviously, Maher isn't seriously advocating rape, nor would I advocate it. Nor do I particularly endorse even joking about rape in that way. It's the concept of "new rules" in general that I like, not that particular one, necessarily. Maher certainly crosses the line sometimes.
"(BTW, why don't you get a blogger account? They're free.)"
Trust me I've tried, several times. Ever since Blogger was taken over by google it's failed to recognise my old login details or any of the new ones I've created. I'm assuming I'm missing something obvious, but...
"If he's known to put ideology over sound medicine, it's pretty clear to me that he's unfit for the job, or at the very least that there are hundreds of thousands of doctors more qualified than he."
Well yes, if you rely on the Human Rights Camapign for your information you may well get this impression. I've had a chance to do a bit more research on this and it seems that this is not a safe thing to do - for example, whereas they were happy to quote Rev. Calhoun as saying the church offers a ministry to men who are unhappy with their sexuality they failed to quote him pointing out that it wasn't specifically focussed on homosexuality (it also dealt with men having problems with pornography and promiscuity) and he did specifically deny that the church offered the sort of conversion therapy that the professional bodies have criticised.
(From here - "The perception that Dr. Holsinger founded a church who targets the gay population is not correct, is inaccurate," Calhoun said in a telephone interview.
Calhoun said news reports have confused facts around one program under the church's recovery ministry, a catch-all group for solving personal problems based on the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program. In that ministry is housed the men's sexual integrity support group, Calhoun said, which is focused on "unhealthy and destructive, and spiritually unhealthy" activity, like pornography or promiscuity.
"[Sexual] orientation is not the issue," he said.)
Which makes me wonder just exactly what Holsinger and the church are being attacked for - failing to turn away unhappy gays who come to them for help?
As for how he treats gays in his professional capacity, let's look at the record. For example, back in 2002 he was Chancellor of the University of Kentucky's Medical Health Center at the time of the fifth Women's Health in Kentucky conference, which came under attack for offering a session on lesbian health issues. Holsinger's reaction was vigorous (from wikipedia) -
""I appreciate the concern of individuals, but I think it's important to educate health-care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians. It's important professionals have the knowledge base to care for these patients in a quality manner (Blackford 2002)." Phyllis Nash, vice chancellor of the medical center said, "His reaction in support could not have been any stronger. He said, as health care providers, we have to be prepared to meet the health needs of anyone who walks into the door.""
Seriously, does that sound like the sort of anti-gay bigot who can't be trusted to do a professional job you're seeking to portray him as?
I'm glad you don't endorse Maher on that one BTW, though I still think there's a double standard at play - it's not being cited as evidence that he is not fit to hold a high profile job in the public eye after all:-/
What the...? It's working today for some reason! I'd better enjoy it while it lasts...
Post a Comment