This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper

Surgeon General Nominee Dismisses Homosexuality Paper - Comments

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 1 by Dr. Strangegod

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


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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:11:00 UTC | #204084

black wolf's Avatar Comment 2 by black wolf

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?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:16:00 UTC | #204087

Big City's Avatar Comment 3 by Big City

Ha! First.
...and I respected you.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:17:00 UTC | #204088

Sander's Avatar Comment 4 by Sander

"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?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:19:00 UTC | #204090

quill's Avatar Comment 5 by quill

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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:19:00 UTC | #204092

Mozglubov's Avatar Comment 6 by Mozglubov

"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...

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:24:00 UTC | #204096

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 7 by thewhitepearl

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?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:24:00 UTC | #204097

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 8 by Szymanowski

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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:26:00 UTC | #204099

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 9 by Dr. Strangegod

...and I respected you.

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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:28:00 UTC | #204100

black wolf's Avatar Comment 10 by black wolf

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:31:00 UTC | #204103

kkelly's Avatar Comment 11 by kkelly

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?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:43:00 UTC | #204109

Wosret's Avatar Comment 12 by Wosret

6. Comment #215197 by Mozglubov


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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:44:00 UTC | #204110

Wosret's Avatar Comment 13 by Wosret

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:50:00 UTC | #204115

Corylus's Avatar Comment 14 by Corylus

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...

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:50:00 UTC | #204116

kkelly's Avatar Comment 15 by kkelly

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:51:00 UTC | #204118

CocoCantare's Avatar Comment 16 by CocoCantare

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 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".

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:54:00 UTC | #204120

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 17 by b0ltzm0n

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:59:00 UTC | #204123

Wosret's Avatar Comment 19 by Wosret

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:00:00 UTC | #204125

Auraboy's Avatar Comment 18 by Auraboy

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:00:00 UTC | #204124

kkelly's Avatar Comment 20 by kkelly

18, I would be gentle with you, aurastud.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:04:00 UTC | #204127

rydrum2112's Avatar Comment 21 by rydrum2112

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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:06:00 UTC | #204128

CocoCantare's Avatar Comment 22 by CocoCantare


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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:06:00 UTC | #204129

Auraboy's Avatar Comment 23 by Auraboy

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:11:00 UTC | #204132

kkelly's Avatar Comment 24 by kkelly

23, arrogant British internet bottom boys, I hope?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:13:00 UTC | #204133

Ai Deng's Avatar Comment 25 by Ai Deng


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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:23:00 UTC | #204137

David J's Avatar Comment 26 by David J


#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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:28:00 UTC | #204142

Village_Idiot's Avatar Comment 28 by Village_Idiot

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.

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

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:32:00 UTC | #204146

thewhitepearl's Avatar Comment 27 by thewhitepearl


this is not a dating site. Contain yourself.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:32:00 UTC | #204145

Auraboy's Avatar Comment 29 by Auraboy

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.

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:34:00 UTC | #204147

Stormkahn's Avatar Comment 30 by Stormkahn

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?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:36:00 UTC | #204149