Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

by Washington Post

Thanks to somethoughtsonthecommontoad for the link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201931.html?referrer=emailarticle

Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

President Bush's nominee for surgeon general sought to distance himself yesterday from his controversial 1991 paper on homosexuality and health, saying that it was not a scientific study and that many issues it raised are outdated.

Democrats on the Senate health committee cited the paper in grilling Kentucky cardiologist James W. Holsinger Jr. about whether he could separate ideology from science if he were confirmed.

Much of the hearing was devoted to questions about whether Holsinger would reject the kind of political interference from Bush administration officials that former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona complained of Tuesday in testimony before a House committee.

Holsinger said that he would step down if pressured to put politics above science -- but only as a last resort after trying to educate policymakers on the science and forge a consensus.

"Candidly, if I were unable to do that and I was being overridden, if necessary I would resign," he said.

Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006, told the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that Bush appointees routinely vetted his speeches for political red flags, told him to mention the president's name at least three times on every page of his public remarks, and approved or denied his travel appearances with an eye to their political impact. Carmona accused the administration of silencing him on hot-button issues such as embryonic stem cell research and abstinence-only sex education.

Holsinger said he has a track record of bucking political opposition, including his efforts to raise taxes on tobacco in Kentucky, a tobacco-growing state. Yesterday he said he would take on the pharmaceutical industry by calling for a ban on the advertising of drugs directly to consumers.

Gay and lesbian groups and the American Public Health Association have opposed Holsinger's nomination. Among his supporters is former surgeon general C. Everett Koop.

No committee vote has been scheduled on the nomination, and a spokeswoman for the chairman, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), said he has not decided how he will vote.

Kennedy said Holsinger's paper was poorly researched and did not reflect the science on sexuality available at the time.

"Dr. Holsinger's paper cherry-picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural," Kennedy said, adding that as surgeon general Holsinger would have to provide medical information "free of interference from his personal views."

Holsinger said he prepared the paper for a study committee of the United Methodist Church. In it, he argued that the sexes are anatomically complementary and that "when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur."

Holsinger said yesterday that his views had evolved and that the issues he raised in the paper would not be relevant in public health discussions today. "I have a deep appreciation for the essential humanity of everyone, regardless of their personal circumstances or sexual orientation," he said.

Holsinger, 68, a former Kentucky health secretary and onetime chief medical director of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, said that his highest priorities as surgeon general would be fighting childhood obesity, eliminating tobacco use and helping public-health first responders prepare for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, July 21, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 138 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #215184 by Lucas on July 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Ha! First. Now I'll read the article.

EDIT

Okay, so the questions are, 1) what exactly does his 1991 paper say? and 2) can a scientist who has interpreted science in a religious framework to support anti-homosexual views ever be trusted to look after the public health? I suppose he could have changed his views, i.e., he may have become less homophobic over the years. Everyone can change their minds, presumably. But I still don't trust him. I think the paper, if it is as it is presented here, disqualifies him from the office of surgeon general. But a close examination of the paper itself is necessary in order to know for sure.

Other Comments by Lucas

2. Comment #215187 by black wolf on July 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Holsinger was a grown man when he published his mendacious bullshit paper, well beyond the age of excusable ignorance. If his views have evolved since then, all that means is that he's been laughably ignorant and dishonest for most of his life. How someone like that can even be considered for such a position as Surgeon General baffles me. He just isn't trustworthy. Is there some secret perverse privilege for stupidity, or is it just the free pass for religious delusions again?

Other Comments by black wolf

3. Comment #215188 by Big City on July 21, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Ha! First.

...and I respected you.

Other Comments by Big City

4. Comment #215190 by Sander on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

"Holsinger said that he would step down if pressured to put politics above science -- but only as a last resort after trying to educate policymakers on the science and forge a consensus. "

Looks like he'd rather stretch what he means with science?

Other Comments by Sander

5. Comment #215192 by quill on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Unfortunately, as long as he still believes that homosexuality is "unhealthy and unnatural", he is not qualified to be Surgeon General.

Other Comments by quill

6. Comment #215197 by Mozglubov on July 21, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur."

I would be very curious to hear what injuries and diseases he means that you cannot get with a heterosexual couple...

Other Comments by Mozglubov

7. Comment #215198 by thewhitepearl on July 21, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Why are they so obssessed over tobacco use?

Scratch that, why are they so obssessed over what anybody chooses to do to themselves and in their private lives?

adding that as surgeon general Holsinger would have to provide medical information "free of interference from his personal views

Ditto. But let me take a wild gander and say AIDS is going to be part of that information? And what "injuries" is he referring to? Various accounts of people being rushed to the hospital with objects stuck in their rear?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

8. Comment #215200 by Szymanowski on July 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm

told him to mention the ~~president's~~ Dear Leader's name at least three times on every page of his public remarks

Fixed

Holsinger said yesterday that his views had evolved and that the issues he raised in the paper would not be relevant in public health discussions today.

Better than nothing, but shouldn't he admit that he had lied?

Other Comments by Szymanowski

9. Comment #215201 by Lucas on July 21, 2008 at 1:28 pm

...and I respected you.

Oh come now, Big City, have some faith. I was being facetious.

Other Comments by Lucas

10. Comment #215204 by black wolf on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I would be very curious to hear what injuries and diseases he means that you cannot get with a heterosexual couple...

Given his mindset, I think it's not much of a stretch to envision him thinking along the lines of 'when you strike two sticks against each other, sooner or later one of them breaks'. If you get what I mean.

Other Comments by black wolf

11. Comment #215210 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 1:43 pm

At least he didn't say that homosexuality is IMMORAL, although I don't doubt that at the time of that paper he felt that it was. If he's changed his views then I can't really feel anger if he gets appointed. Then again I don't know how unscientific and bigotted the paper actually was.

The injuries he's referring to are probably hemorrhoids, anal fistulas, loss of anal tone. It's sad but true, the anus and rectum don't handle repeated cock-poundings all that well. But why would a straight man care enough to investigate it?

Other Comments by kkelly

12. Comment #215211 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 1:44 pm

6. Comment #215197 by Mozglubov

Gay-cooties?

And women have those long sharp nails. Dudes would like get all greesed up and wrestle, then one could fall down.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

13. Comment #215216 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 1:50 pm

11. Comment #215210 by kkelly

I think the more important thing is that he used fallacious and poorly supported data to support a preconceived and bigotted opinion. It doesn't matter (in my opinion) what specifically it was about. It is that he is willing to do something so unprofessional. This disqualifies him in my opinion.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

14. Comment #215217 by Corylus on July 21, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Well I got myself on google scholar and had a gander.

Looks like this is it.

Some gems of wisdom in there.

In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other.

Hehehe! - I can't help thinking about the old jokes concerning scottish names like ' Patrick FitzWilliam' and 'William Fitzpatrick'...

....

Blurgh, seriously though. - It's just appeal to nature, appeal to nature, and....ooh!... more appeal to nature.
---
N.B. I am not a doctor or biologist though - I would like to hear a professional view on that article...

Other Comments by Corylus

15. Comment #215219 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm

10, no, black wolf, I don't get what you mean, I'm pretty dense. Please clarify, and be as literal and erotic as possible.

Other Comments by kkelly

16. Comment #215221 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Oh, come now Lucas and Black Wolf! Although I don't know the whole story on this guy and I'm not sure about anyone Bush endorses:

I'm a brand-spanking-new-baby atheist who only recently got the nerve to join in on the threads here on RD.net. How is it fair that, now that I have thrown off the shackles of indoctrination I was brainwashed with for so many years, I can never be trusted to run for office or do any public works?

I was vehemently "anti-homosexual" as a part of my faith and now I'm outspoken in the equal rights for those of any sexual orientation. People should be able to change for the better and be "trusted".

Other Comments by CocoCantare

17. Comment #215224 by b0ltzm0n on July 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Given his mindset, I think it's not much of a stretch to envision him thinking along the lines of 'when you strike two sticks against each other, sooner or later one of them breaks'. If you get what I mean.

For some reason your post made me think of the Large Hadron Collider... not sure why.

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

18. Comment #215225 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I don't know, if he was writing a scientific paper on behalf of the methodist church I'm not sure it's peer-review process was expected to be that stringent.

Ah the old Anal loosening. It worries them so. Oddly enough the male rectum recovers quicker than the female, but don't tell the girls I know.

Other Comments by Auraboy

19. Comment #215226 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 2:00 pm

16. Comment #215221 by CocoCantare

I don't think there is anything that suggests he has changed. All that this suggests is that he lied, used fallacious reasoning and evidence to support his views, and suffered public embarassment at its thorough discrediting. The man was 51 years old. It was 17 years ago, and he may have changed his views in this case, but I would need reason to believe that he would not be willing to employ such tactics again whenever it suited him.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

20. Comment #215228 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm

18, I would be gentle with you, aurastud.

Other Comments by kkelly

21. Comment #215229 by rydrum2112 on July 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

This article is like a year old, got a different guy in there now anyway.

Other Comments by rydrum2112

22. Comment #215230 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Mitchell,

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I just hope that Black Wolf isn't implying that people who change still cannot be trusted. The major point of Richard Dawkins' work is to help people change for the better, not marginalize them once they do change, and not trust them to do good things for government, society, or the world.

Other Comments by CocoCantare

23. Comment #215233 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Never be gentle with political appointees or arrogant British internet boys.

Yeah, it's an interesting point. What do you forgive? Or more accurately what evidence do you take of general retraction of views versus political expediency?

I see Bush is a recovering alcoholic. I believe that. Not so sure about the recovering moron part etc (insert past seven years of mild Anti-Bush humour here).

I need to stop with the inserting innuendo.

Other Comments by Auraboy

24. Comment #215234 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

23, arrogant British internet bottom boys, I hope?

Other Comments by kkelly

25. Comment #215238 by Ai Deng on July 21, 2008 at 2:23 pm

CocoCantare,

I completely hear what you are saying. Besides losing the chains of belief, what would be the reward or benefit your new friends are never going to accept you. His past should certainly certainly be a factor to consider in our judgement of who he is today, but we must allow for the idea that "people can change". That said, as you alluded to earlier, Bush supports him, and that is reason alone to bring out the microscope.

Other Comments by Ai Deng

26. Comment #215243 by David J on July 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm

CocoCantare,

#1. Welcome. Feels great, doesn't it?

#2. The difference between you and the Good Doctor's change in view on homosexuality is that the Good Doctor is now in politics. All American politicians have a single purpose - appear to unite the two sides without ticking off those of the faithful base by swinging too far to the other side.

Other Comments by David J

27. Comment #215246 by thewhitepearl on July 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

kkelly,

this is not a dating site. Contain yourself.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

28. Comment #215247 by Village_Idiot on July 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Holsinger said he prepared the paper for a study committee of the United Methodist Church.

A study committee on homosexuality led by church to show that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural? That must have been a real circus. He was properly compensated for that paper with "chri$tian dollars", I bet.

This man was and, I believe, still is a dangerous public idiot with MD degree who simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

thewhitepearl

this is not a dating site -- hahaha...that's a good one

Other Comments by Village_Idiot

29. Comment #215248 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm

24. I'd have to parse that sentence first, a British Bottom or bottom of the internet? Etc...

I think it's interesting that we'd (well you'd -Americans- for those of you of that persuasion) can stop a person holding office for having a criminal record or a record of holding extremist viewpoints but it's interesting as I said, at which point does forgiveness or evidence of ending that opinion, that rehabilitation come in? Should you stop someone who held racist, sexist or homophobic views in print from automatically holding office in the same way? I'm not sure, but I'd say when you're asking to be promoted into a position of power without a direct public election the burden of proof would have to be on you to show you wouldn't bring that bigotry into play again.

Other Comments by Auraboy

30. Comment #215250 by Stormkahn on July 21, 2008 at 2:36 pm

The earlier paper clear demonstrates that his priority lies with his invisible friends rather than scientific integrity. I therefore conclude he's a f******* and sadly that also means probably more than suited to high office in the good ol' US of A.

Has he changed or is he better at the BS?

Other Comments by Stormkahn

31. Comment #215252 by al-rawandi on July 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm

white pearl,

kkelly is looking for a date?

I see "anal cock pounding" "aurastud" and "bottom boys". What kind of date might this be?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

32. Comment #215253 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm

I'm assuming it's not for the purposes of reproduction.

Other Comments by Auraboy

33. Comment #215254 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm

I guess timing is of the essence here. In this case I get the feeling that he his trying to distance himself from his earlier views only because they could cost him his career.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

34. Comment #215256 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm

29, a bottom as in the place to insert my penis.

Other Comments by kkelly

35. Comment #215257 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Oystein Elgaroy, I agree.

Other Comments by CocoCantare

36. Comment #215259 by thewhitepearl on July 21, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Al,

Must have missed the "anal cock pounding" part.

A kind of date that I most certainly wouldn't be added on to the "potential hit list"

[edit] for once.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

37. Comment #215260 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm

33. And his distancing seems to have been limited to 'This was not a scientific study'...As it was just a fluff piece for the Methodist church, he was allowed to make stuff up. Okay.

34. Really? I'd never have guessed.

Other Comments by Auraboy

38. Comment #215263 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 2:48 pm

36, no you're still on the list, there's an intoxicating masculinity about you.

Other Comments by kkelly

39. Comment #215264 by al-rawandi on July 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm

white pearl,

I don't get these comments.

29, a bottom as in the place to insert my penis.

What the hell is wrong with these people. I mean srsly. This guy might be barking up the wrong tree.... or spelunking in the wrong cave... as it were.

And "for once"? *chuckle*

Other Comments by al-rawandi

40. Comment #215266 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Geez, KKelly, it was kinda funny at first, but now you're soundin' a little desperate. . . there are plenty of fun sites for what you're looking for. . . I'm sure. I just don't feel like witnessing cybersex , especially via RD.net!

Other Comments by CocoCantare

41. Comment #215267 by Auraboy on July 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Al you must see anal cock pounding a little too easily. Although spelunking is such a great word it did need referencing into this conversation...

...which I did momentarily try to veer back on topic...sort of like trying to avoid that iceberg...worked out well.

Other Comments by Auraboy

42. Comment #215268 by thewhitepearl on July 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

kkelly,

There's the feature on RD called Private Messages. Use them.

Or I'm going to start directing inappropriate comments at Al.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

43. Comment #215269 by kkelly on July 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

40, okay fine, but perhaps you still have some subconscious disgust about gays? You can't turn that off overnight.

Other Comments by kkelly

44. Comment #215270 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Sorry, White Pearl, KKelly posted right before I did. I didn't mean to imply that he's desperate because he wants you on his list (or whatever it is he's saying).

Other Comments by CocoCantare

45. Comment #215274 by al-rawandi on July 21, 2008 at 2:59 pm

white pearl,

Geeze, I don't know how I feel about all this...

And no comments about the hot dog... I am sensitive about the potential connotations. :-)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

46. Comment #215275 by CocoCantare on July 21, 2008 at 2:59 pm

KKelly,

Actually, it's been a few years and I was never really uncomfortable with it, just thought I was following my faith correctly by being a homophobe. Nice try, though. Actually it wasn't. . . you're lame.

So what shall we call him, folks? A sex-troll?

Other Comments by CocoCantare

47. Comment #215276 by al-rawandi on July 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm

auraboy,

The injuries he's referring to are probably hemorrhoids, anal fistulas, loss of anal tone. It's sad but true, the anus and rectum don't handle repeated cock-poundings all that well. But why would a straight man care enough to investigate it?

This is where I got it, it was this clown's first comment.

ass-spelunking is what you meant, no?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

48. Comment #215277 by AutodaFe on July 21, 2008 at 3:02 pm

KKelly

I'm a gay man and I'm cringing like Hell right now after reading your posts. Please Stop!!!

And take a cold shower or something.

Other Comments by AutodaFe

49. Comment #215284 by al-rawandi on July 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm