Meet the new surgeon general

[tecoyah]

Seems quite qualified....if you need a plumber and are not gay. I just read the paper he wrote for the Methodist Church.....this guy definately has issues with Gays, I wonder how he feels about his mother.....Heh.

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Seems quite qualified....if you need a plumber and are not gay. I just read the paper he wrote for the Methodist Church.....this guy definately has issues with Gays, I wonder how he feels about his mother.....Heh.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1

I just read the paper. Here is the link.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...osexuality.pdf

I am not a scientist or a homosexual, but I think what he wrote about about anal sex is common knowledge. The real issue must be who he was writing the paper to and the issue under consideration in the church.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I just read the paper. Here is the link.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...osexuality.pdf

I am not a scientist or a homosexual, but I think what he wrote about about anal sex is common knowledge. The real issue must be who he was writing the paper to and the issue under consideration in the church.

No...sorry.

The issue comes down to a history of seperation issues slipping into American Politics in small increments. The damn President went to war because God told him to, for Christs sake. Though I am not a scientist or gay either....I can clearly see an issue when my doctor fails to pay attention to science and logic....over Dogma.

Yes, his religion is an issue....because he has made it one. I would have the same reaction if Muslims proclaimed women had to wear Burkas. Either way, I don't want to be forced to deal with your religion.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

No...sorry.

The issue comes down to a history of seperation issues slipping into American Politics in small increments. The damn President went to war because God told him to, for Christs sake. Though I am not a scientist or gay either....I can clearly see an issue when my doctor fails to pay attention to science and logic....over Dogma.

Yes, his religion is an issue....because he has made it one. I would have the same reaction if Muslims proclaimed women had to wear Burkas. Either way, I don't want to be forced to deal with your religion.

I don't think you read the paper.

What he basically says is: If person A clenches his fist and sticks it up person B's butt all the way to person A's elbow, it is going to hurt person B unless a proper amount of lubrication is applied.

[tecoyah]

Actually Ace...I did indeed read it. However, you seem to regularly miss the subtlety others use to form rational thought. By taking in the larger picture, and using available Data to create actual opinion you can avoid repeating that which has been placed before you for consumption by a machine that excels at such things. The attempt to place someone obviously Biased against homosexuals into a position that can easily affect this population negatively, fits a well documented pattern which Bush and this administration have followed.
Attempting to dig a bit deeper into intent behind such moves may not be comfortable, and might even get a bit disturbing....But it really needs to be done at some point. Ignoring such blatant attempts to force an agenda, seems to me rather cowardly.

[aceventura3]

There are two issues, that are completely seperate in my view.

First -

When you and others suggest that the paper he wrote in 1991 is the basis for your beliefs that Holsinger should not be the surgeon general itmakes me want to read what he wrote. I did not detect moral judgment in his tone, nor did I get the impression he wrote anything that was not accurate at the time.

Second-

Bush is a "family values" (whatever that means, because there are contradictions that I acknowledge) President. He is going to nominate "family values" people. That is his right as our elected President. The assumption that you make that a person "biased against homosexuals" is actually going to negatively affect that population is a stretch and is unfair. There are many people who can look beyond their biases and do what is right by all the people they serve. Biases should not be feared they should be discussed and put on the table so people can deal with them.

[dc_dux]

The role of the Surgeon General is to give Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.

This is a guy who believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and believes gays and lesbians can be "cured" through "conversion therapy" and founded a church wiith that mission.

Best scientific information?

[Jinn]

I absolutely agree with ace (oddly enough) that this paper is benign. It makes no claim towards the immorality of Homosexuality, and coming from someone so openly Christian, is is very professionally written.

The conclusion of the paper is only that male and female anatomy appear to be complementary organisms when viewed under the condition he viewed them under. Further still, he concluded that anal sex is more likely to cause physiological damage than vaginal sex, and this is obvious.

His paper sounds like any Average Joe Scientist could write, and it was quite interesting. So it's unfair to say that this brands him homophobic.

That said, I think his vocal religious beliefs make him a poor choice for Surgeon General. Not because he wrote this paper, but because he is so vocally against Homosexuality from a theological standpoint.