President Bush Unveils Questionable Nominee for Surgeon General

[Justin Davis]

President Bush has nominated James W. Holsinger to be the next surgeon general of the United States. However, there's a big brouhaha over Holsinger is that he wrote a paper in 1991 titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf) in which Holsinger argues that homosexuality is not "natural or healthy."

Choose your source:

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302012.html) or FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,SurgeonGeneral,00.html)

I like how the Post gives a brief overview of Holsinger's career history and then spends the rest of the short article discussing the paper and printing reactions to his nomination. Meanwhile, the FOX News piece never mentions the paper, says the last surgeon general gave "an unprecedented report condemning secondhand smoke," and mentions in the first sentence how Holsinger wants to fight childhood obesity.

[Xero Kaiser]

Other than warning me about the dangers of smoking, I'm not sure what the Surgeon General is even supposed to be doing.

[Justin Davis]

Other than warning me about the dangers of smoking, I'm not sure what the Surgeon General is even supposed to be doing.

Advising you to masturbate more?

[Jack Zodiac]

Only if they're a good one!

[Pól Rua]

I miss the days when this sort of thing would surprise me.

[Rallura]

Advising you to masturbate more?

Hrm, let's see...

Mission of the Surgeon General

The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury. The Surgeon General is appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate for a 4-year term of office. In carrying out all responsibilities, the Surgeon General reports to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary on public health and scientific issues.
The Office of the Surgeon General, under the direction of the Surgeon General, oversees the operations of the 6,000-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and provides support for the Surgeon General in the accomplishment of his other duties. The Office is part of the Office of Public Health and Science in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


Yes, Justin is right, The Surgeon General definitely wants Xero to masturbate more.

[Justin Davis]

I miss the days when this sort of thing would surprise me.

It doesn't surprise me, but this time it does amuse me. I actually laughed out loud when I saw this on the news because this nomination is so ridiculous.

Hrm, let's see...



Yes, Justin is right, The Surgeon General definitely wants Xero to masturbate more.

I don't think the surgeon general is limiting it to just him though.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, at least he doesn't think abortion causes breast cancer. As far as we know.

So, for a Bush nominee, he's actually not that bad!!!

[Rallura]

I don't think the surgeon general is limiting it to just him though.

Ok, him and the guys who wrote Ice Spiders.

[darkhanamaru]

Hrm, let's see...



Yes, Justin is right, The Surgeon General definitely wants Xero to masturbate more.

yes i miss when we actually had a surgeon general who did that

[moebius]

I think the only "question" is how long will it take to reject this doofus.

[Spike-X]

Maybe he thinks it can be cured by a good leeching.

For fuck's sake! What century are we living in again?

[Mac Danny]

Ok, him and the guys who wrote Ice Spiders.

That's assuming someone actually WROTE Ice Spiders. Me I think that a couple of producers got a Mad Libs, filled it out and filmed it.

[Mac Danny]

President Bush has nominated James W. Holsinger to be the next surgeon general of the United States. However, there's a big brouhaha over Holsinger is that he wrote a paper in 1991 titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf) in which Holsinger argues that homosexuality is not "natural or healthy."

Choose your source:

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302012.html) or FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,SurgeonGeneral,00.html)

I like how the Post gives a brief overview of Holsinger's career history and then spends the rest of the short article discussing the paper and printing reactions to his nomination. Meanwhile, the FOX News piece never mentions the paper, says the last surgeon general gave "an unprecedented report condemning secondhand smoke," and mentions in the first sentence how Holsinger wants to fight childhood obesity.

Well it could have been This guy..

http://talkwarrior.com/photox/kevorkian.jpg

But knowing how backwards this administration is I am surprised it's not this guy.

http://www.02138mag.com/asset/472.jpg

[AJTalon]

Look, like it or not the man is free to his opinion, like anyone else. I personally don't agree with it but I'm not saying he should be rejected out of hand. If he can do the job and not let his personal beliefs interfere in his duties, then I say let him.

Just because he feels homosexuality is unnatural or unhealthy doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good Surgeon General. It's not as if he's saying all homosexuals should be rounded up and shot now is he?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Look, like it or not the man is free to his opinion, like anyone else. I personally don't agree with it but I'm not saying he should be rejected out of hand. If he can do the job and not let his personal beliefs interfere in his duties, then I say let him.

Just because he feels homosexuality is unnatural or unhealthy doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good Surgeon General. It's not as if he's saying all homosexuals should be rounded up and shot now is he?

Yours copied above is one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on CBR in the current calendar year.

Having sound opinions, and attempting to impart same to the public, is part of the job of the Surgeon General. When you have someone that has viewpoints which are not in accordance of those of the general medical community, and for which there is no sound medical basis, then such viewpoints should very much disqualify one for the post of Surgeon General.

This guy is of course absolutely free to have whatever opinion he has, no matter how ignorant or backwards or biased the opinion. But backwardness, bias and ignorance are not good qualities for public service, no matter how present they are among the current Administration and its supporters.

[Shellhead]

Bush is trying to change the topic again, after getting slapped by his own party over immigration reform. Plus, there's that ongoing disaster in Iraq. In a way, this is encouraging... it's a sign that our president has actually learned a little bit about politics since 2000.

[dingo]

I would like to know if there was a way to chemically induce homosexuality, then we could add it to the water supply and solve the worlds overpopulation problems.

[AJTalon]

Yours copied above is one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on CBR in the current calendar year.

Having sound opinions, and attempting to impart same to the public, is part of the job of the Surgeon General. When you have someone that has viewpoints which are not in accordance of those of the general medical community, and for which there is no sound medical basis, then such viewpoints should very much disqualify one for the post of Surgeon General.

This guy is of course absolutely free to have whatever opinion he has, no matter how ignorant or backwards or biased the opinion. But backwardness, bias and ignorance are not good qualities for public service, no matter how present they are among the current Administration and its supporters.

Look, if he does the job well and keeps his personal bias out of it, then I say let him. If he doesn't, sack him. I don't think that is ignorant and I am offended at the implication.

[AJTalon]

I would like to know if there was a way to chemically induce homosexuality, then we could add it to the water supply and solve the worlds overpopulation problems.

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

[Kid Omega]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem.

Do you even remotely realize how totally whacked out that statement is?

It's that kind of fuzzy logic and binary thinking that gets us into trouble...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Look, if he does the job well and keeps his personal bias out of it, then I say let him. If he doesn't, sack him. I don't think that is ignorant and I am offended at the implication.

So be offended. You're demonstrating ignorance by completely failing to appreciate the nature of the job of the Surgeon General.

Beliefs and opinions and knowledge of facts are a very important component of the job of the Surgeon General. One of the primary jobs of the US Surgeon General is to promote good health by providing good, quality, up-to-date information. You don't want a surgeon general parcelling out ignorance and bias and false beliefs.

The fact is, there is no medical evidence that homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior is any less - or more - healthy than any other sort sexual orientation or behavior. There is no behavior engaged in by homosexuals which is not also engaged in by heterosexuals, and the risks are identical for both. And given that HIV and sexual health are very much current concerns, it only makes sense that a person serving as Surgeon General have informed, medically sound opinions about these topics.

[dingo]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

I think you are wrong. I think it very hard. Very hard indeed.

[Iangould]

Look, like it or not the man is free to his opinion, like anyone else. I personally don't agree with it but I'm not saying he should be rejected out of hand. If he can do the job and not let his personal beliefs interfere in his duties, then I say let him.

Just because he feels homosexuality is unnatural or unhealthy doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good Surgeon General. It's not as if he's saying all homosexuals should be rounded up and shot now is he?

"The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury."

This guy is on record expressing views regarding homosexuality and health which directly contradict "the best scientific information available" on the topic as reflected by the decision ot remove homosexuality from the standard handbook of psychiatric illnesses (Jeffrey, who's a psychologist can doubtless remember the name of the work in question).

[Nick Soapdish]

Look, like it or not the man is free to his opinion, like anyone else. I personally don't agree with it but I'm not saying he should be rejected out of hand. If he can do the job and not let his personal beliefs interfere in his duties, then I say let him.

Just because he feels homosexuality is unnatural or unhealthy doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good Surgeon General. It's not as if he's saying all homosexuals should be rounded up and shot now is he?

It already has.

He's made a public statement that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. According to the website of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General is America's chief health educator. So that statement is suddenly going to have a lot of weight behind it unless he's denouncing his own opinion.

Nuts. Ian beat me to it.

[cactusmaac]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

You are right, but not for the reasons you give.

[Iangould]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

Define "occupy".

Provide a source for your statement.

[AJTalon]

I think you are wrong. I think it very hard. Very hard indeed.

Fine, you're free to think that. But by all means, do the calculations yourself. You could fit the entire population of the planet in Texas if you gave everyone the equivalent of the average college dorm room. And trust me, plenty of people would prefer to live like an American college student than they are now.



So be offended. You're demonstrating ignorance by completely failing to appreciate the nature of the job of the Surgeon General.

Beliefs and opinions and knowledge of facts are a very important component of the job of the Surgeon General. One of the primary jobs of the US Surgeon General is to promote good health by providing good, quality, up-to-date information. You don't want a surgeon general parcelling out ignorance and bias and false beliefs.

The fact is, there is no medical evidence that homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior is any less - or more - healthy than any other sort sexual orientation or behavior. There is no behavior engaged in by homosexuals which is not also engaged in by heterosexuals, and the risks are identical for both. And given that HIV and sexual health are very much current concerns, it only makes sense that a person serving as Surgeon General have informed, medically sound opinions about these topics.

I was merely offering another point of view. No need to raise your hackles about it.

You are right, but not for the reasons you give.

Okay, what are the reasons then?

[Nick Soapdish]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

Ok.

70% of the world is covered by water. While there is a lot of life in there, it doesn't provide us with any room to live.

Ignoring that a lot of the remaining land area isn't especially suitable for human habitation, such as Antarctica, the tops of mountains, the middle of the Sahara, that means that humans are occupying 10% of the land area.

We're just one species. And we actually do need some other life forms to help sustain us such as cattle (for the non-vegans) or wheat. So our footprint is a lot bigger than just that 3%.

[Nick Soapdish]

Fine, you're free to think that. But by all means, do the calculations yourself. You could fit the entire population of the planet in Texas if you gave everyone the equivalent of the average college dorm room. And trust me, plenty of people would prefer to live like an American college student than they are now.


Most people prefer to be able to leave the dorm room from time to time.

[dingo]

Fine, you're free to think that. But by all means, do the calculations yourself. You could fit the entire population of the planet in Texas if you gave everyone the equivalent of the average college dorm room. And trust me, plenty of people would prefer to live like an American college student than they are now.


I guess we would be ok if we could grow all our food and wood,mine all our minerals and produce all our pesky consumer luxuries in an area the size of a dorm room.

Me, I live in the real world. The view sucks but I think I will stay anyhow. I've grown used to the old girl.

[Iangould]

Fine, you're free to think that. But by all means, do the calculations yourself. You could fit the entire population of the planet in Texas if you gave everyone the equivalent of the average college dorm room. And trust me, plenty of people would prefer to live like an American college student than they are now.


And as we all know, the average American dorm room is large enough to grow all the crops needed to support the average human indefinitely AND to allow for the mining of all the metal and other minerals that person will consume.

[Justin Davis]

Bush is trying to change the topic again, after getting slapped by his own party over immigration reform. Plus, there's that ongoing disaster in Iraq. In a way, this is encouraging... it's a sign that our president has actually learned a little bit about politics since 2000.

Smart thinking. Bush might actually have chosen Holsinger solely because he knew it would create a controversy, which would mean people might ignore other issues he's getting slammed on. The trouble with that is even though the media is often unable to focus on more than one thing, the general public can.

Look, if he does the job well and keeps his personal bias out of it, then I say let him. If he doesn't, sack him. I don't think that is ignorant and I am offended at the implication.

Here's what you're not getting. With opinions like the ones he's stated and even enforced at his church, he does not fit the requirements of the job. Thinking that homosexuality is essentially a disease is not sound medicine, which is something the surgeon general needs to know. It's like someone nominating me to be the head of NASA even though I have gone on record as claiming that there are beings living on the moon and we must prepare an army to fight them. It's a ludicrous idea that puts me out of running for the position, not just because it's crazy on its own, but because its craziness relates to the job I was nominated for.

[Shellhead]

Humans occupy 3 percent of the total land area of Earth. THREE PERCENT. There is NO overpopulation problem. Poverty comes from bad economic policies for the most part, or illiteracy or other factors that depend on the situation or economy of the nation the person is in. Overpopulation does not come into this.

Overpopulation is not merely based on square footage. People need a lot more room than just the space to swing their arms around without striking a loud dumbass. There needs to be sufficent land to support the livestock and crops that will be eaten by all those people, and there needs to be sufficient fresh water for the crops, the livestock and the people. Pollution reduces the productivity of the land and the availability of the water. More people means more pollution. Food and water can be delivered to people, but that may mean additional pollution, and is not really a viable long-term solution.

[hoffmandu]

Advising you to masturbate more?

I can see the public service announcement Poster now : The Surgeon General urges YOU to wax one off on your lunch hour. It'll save your life. *pic of the guy pointing right at you, half grinning, winking.

[AJTalon]

I guess we would be ok if we could grow all our food and wood,mine all our minerals and produce all our pesky consumer luxuries in an area the size of a dorm room.

Me, I live in the real world. The view sucks but I think I will stay anyhow. I've grown used to the old girl.

Hmm, yes, thinking all humans are scum and should only get what a bunch of environmentalists who live in luxury think they should IS far more realistic.

And as we all know, the average American dorm room is large enough to grow all the crops needed to support the average human indefinitely AND to allow for the mining of all the metal and other minerals that person will consume.

I was using the model for basic living space, which is, yes, merely academic in it's applications. But it still makes the point that overpopulation is not a real problem.

Ok.

70% of the world is covered by water. While there is a lot of life in there, it doesn't provide us with any room to live.

Ignoring that a lot of the remaining land area isn't especially suitable for human habitation, such as Antarctica, the tops of mountains, the middle of the Sahara, that means that humans are occupying 10% of the land area.

We're just one species. And we actually do need some other life forms to help sustain us such as cattle (for the non-vegans) or wheat. So our footprint is a lot bigger than just that 3%.

So what? It still doesn't make overpopulation an actual problem for our species to face.

Here's what you're not getting. With opinions like the ones he's stated and even enforced at his church, he does not fit the requirements of the job. Thinking that homosexuality is essentially a disease is not sound medicine, which is something the surgeon general needs to know. It's like someone nominating me to be the head of NASA even though I have gone on record as claiming that there are beings living on the moon and we must prepare an army to fight them. It's a ludicrous idea that puts me out of running for the position, not just because it's crazy on its own, but because its craziness relates to the job I was nominated for.

First off, this is not related to his religious beliefs. He actually says so in the report. If everyone actually READ the report, they would understand that his beliefs came from scientific documentation and study. He feels from his research that male and female reproduction organs complement eachother anatomically, which makes sense-That is how they were designed. Homosexual activity is, by it's very definition in the strictest sense, unnatural.
It is using an orifice for purposes it was not meant for, for the purposes of sexual activity. He cites health risks and concerns and higher possibilities of disease and injury in engaging in homosexual activities.

The media has, once again, twisted things by making a doctor who merely submitted a proper study that homosexual sex has many more health risks than heterosexual sex into some kind of insane, religious bigot.

As the good doctor himself concludes, res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself!

[JeffreyWKramer]

I was merely offering another point of view. No need to raise your hackles about it.
Some points of view are ignorant, and just plain wrong.

Should hackles not get raised if someone offers the point of view that pedophiles make good daycare providers, or if someone expressed the point of view that Jews and black folk are subhumans?

You seem to be operating under the delusion that saying "It's my opinion" renders ignorant viewpoints deserving of respect or immune to criticism.

[Michael P]

Look, if he does the job well and keeps his personal bias out of it, then I say let him. If he doesn't, sack him. I don't think that is ignorant and I am offended at the implication.

The fact that he's so backasswards on the subject of homosexuality, particularly given the scientific evidence that his opinion is full of crap, pretty much proves he won't do the job well.

[Michael P]

Hmm, yes, thinking all humans are scum and should only get what a bunch of environmentalists who live in luxury think they should IS far more realistic.

Where in the fuck did that come from?

[JeffreyWKramer]

First off, this is not related to his religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter where he got the stupid ideas. They're out of accordance with medical knowledge, and factually wrong.
He actually says so in the report. If everyone actually READ the report, they would understand that his beliefs came from scientific documentation and study.
And the beliefs are nonetheless not in accordance with the general medical community, or those of the psychiatric community, or reality. Which means he's ignorant of the facts, misreading the evidence, and twisting data to justify his own biases.

Keep in mind, what this guy says is not in accordance with what the American Medical Association says about homosexuality, or sexual health in general. It's also out of accordance with the views of the American Psychiatric Association, and every major professional organization dealing with mental health and/or sexuality.

He feels from his research that male and female reproduction organs complement eachother anatomically, which makes sense-That is how they were designed.
They weren't "designed" at all. They evolved. And, it so happens that homosexuals do pretty much the same things sexually that heterosexuals do. There isn't any sexual activity that is specifically homosexual or heterosexual, and sex is about a lot more than reproduction.

Homosexual activity is, by it's very definition in the strictest sense, unnatural.
No, it isn't. It occurs in nature, so by definition, it's actually very much a natural phenomenon.

It is using an orifice for purposes it was not meant for, for the purposes of sexual activity. He cites health risks and concerns and higher possibilities of disease and injury in engaging in homosexual activities.
You seem to be focusing on anal sex here. Keep in mind, the orifices involved aren't specifically "meant" for anything. They function in lots of different ways and are used for different purposes.

Keep in mind also that anal sex isn't a specifically homosexual activity. Most heterosexuals have at least experimented with anal sex at some point in their lives. A sizable minority engage in anal sex with some degree of regularity or semi-regularity.

People that don't realize these facts have an extremely backwards and out-of-tune-with-reality view of things, and in the case of a doctor with such viewpoints, such backwardness should disqualify one from a position of prominence such as Surgeon General.


The media has, once again, twisted things by making a doctor who merely submitted a proper study that homosexual sex has many more health risks than heterosexual sex into some kind of insane, religious bigot.
The thing is, hes' wrong on a factual level. Homosexual sex is no more risky than heterosexual sex. There's no more risk to two guys having anal sex then there is to a man and a woman having anal sex, and, once again for the slow people, *neither anal sex, nor any other sex act, is innately homosexual.*

[AJTalon]

Kramer, did you actually read the report? At all?

[Michael P]

Yo Butt Ain't Made For That! (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/yo-butt-aint.php)

[Kid Omega]

Look, AJ.... the world is 70-75% water.

Of the 25% that's left, let's say 10% is uninhabitab;e due to desert conditions (antartica, siberia, the sahara, etc...)

So we're left with 15%. Which means, by your 3% number, that humans are actually taking up one-fifth of the habitable planet. Now consider that most humans live in urban areas. So if humans were to spread out and actually cover the surface, we're looking at more like two or three-fiths of the surface.

That's insane.

Compare it to other species with like food/warmth needs (bears, great apes, wolves, etc.), and consider then, in relation, how much room humans take up with regards to what is considered a healthy, natural balance for a species population.

Now add automomobiles, man-made structures, domesticated animals and bred livestock, and ass that to the human population imprint.

Is it starting to become clear? Can you see now why your 3% number is essentially a lie, and a dangerous one at that?

[Kid Omega]

According to that report, hands were not made for penises!

Alert the world population of men! They're doing it all wrong!

[Michael P]

According to that report, hands were not made for penises!

Alert the world population of men! They're doing it all wrong!

I am shamed.

[dingo]

According to that report, hands were not made for penises!

Alert the world population of men! They're doing it all wrong!

I'm going to make such a mess next time I pee.

[Asa]

A new Surgeon general HHHmmmmm. He definetly has the crudenials to do the job. There definitely needs to be some changes. His article regarding children is an issue alone that is very good. Could be a good thing. OH I forgot this thread is about Homosexuality.

[Spackling Compound]

I was kind of hoping for someone more moderate....




http://www.samruby.com/Villains/DoctorDoom/DrDoomChap.gif

[Mac Danny]

I was kind of hoping for someone more moderate....




http://www.samruby.com/Villains/DoctorDoom/DrDoomChap.gif

Today, The surgeon general Dr. Victor Von Doom announced that the greatest threat to America's health is the accursed Reed Richards and his meddlesome Fantastic Four..

In other news A cat saves a man from a burning apartment.

[Mac Danny]

Double Post Server hiccup

[AJTalon]

Look, AJ.... the world is 70-75% water.

Of the 25% that's left, let's say 10% is uninhabitab;e due to desert conditions (antartica, siberia, the sahara, etc...)

So we're left with 15%. Which means, by your 3% number, that humans are actually taking up one-fifth of the habitable planet. Now consider that most humans live in urban areas. So if humans were to spread out and actually cover the surface, we're looking at more like two or three-fiths of the surface.

That's insane.

Compare it to other species with like food/warmth needs (bears, great apes, wolves, etc.), and consider then, in relation, how much room humans take up with regards to what is considered a healthy, natural balance for a species population.

Now add automomobiles, man-made structures, domesticated animals and bred livestock, and ass that to the human population imprint.

Is it starting to become clear? Can you see now why your 3% number is essentially a lie, and a dangerous one at that?

Why don't you complain to the insects about how much of the planet's surface they occupy? They're everywhere, literally. Hell, MICROSCOPIC ORGANISMS make up 90 percent of all the life on Earth. Why don't you ask them to shove over?

My 3 percent is academic in nature, but demonstrates my point that humans do not take up as much room on the planet as you believe. Yes, we require food and so forth, but still our effect is negligible. The rain forest occupies 16 percent of the land surface area of the planet, WAY more than we do even if you take into account agriculture, etc.

Do you think you can determine the healthy balance of a species's population? Do you wish to play God and restrict our growth? Because I can think of some people who also employed "population control". Stalin did away with 40 million of his own people because they were a "drain" on his resources, or dissented with him (or seemed to in his own mind). Do not be so quick to judge the human's race suitability for survival, thank you.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Kramer, did you actually read the report? At all?

Yes, I did, and I've rarely seen a bigger pile of shit. Talk about a lot of selective presentation, and outright misrepresentation, of facts.

Of course, he got away with it because, however much you want to pretend otherwise, it isn't a scientific paper at all. As such, it wasn't subject to peer review or any other procedure to make certain the views presented were concordant with reality. The paper was, after all, prepared as a presentation to a church group to which this crappy doc is, or at least was at the time, a member.

[Typo Lad]

AJ,

You seem to be taking the idea of over-population personally.

It's not just "room" involved. It's resources, impact, etc. How much farmland does it take to feed that "3%"? How much raw raw materials are needed for construction, etc.

Sure, overpopulation isn't the only cause of poverty in the world. Saying that would be bone-ignorant. But over-population is an issue.

Plus, when you look at it on a local level, there certainly are areas that are over-populated compared to others.

[Michael P]

AJ,

You seem to be taking the idea of over-population personally.

It's not just "room" involved. It's resources, impact, etc. How much farmland does it take to feed that "3%"? How much raw raw materials are needed for construction, etc.

Sure, overpopulation isn't the only cause of poverty in the world. Saying that would be bone-ignorant. But over-population is an issue.

Plus, when you look at it on a local level, there certainly are areas that are over-populated compared to others.

My apartment, for example.

[Shellhead]

AJ,
You seem to be taking the idea of over-population personally.


I betcha that AJ is Catholic.

[Typo Lad]

I betcha that AJ is Catholic.
That was entirely uncalled for, Shell.

[Alex Scott]

The paper was, after all, prepared as a presentation to a church group to which this crappy doc is, or at least was at the time, a member.
And not just any church group, but a church group connected with the Institute for Religion and Democracy (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/6/7/212325/0772), which funds so-called "renewal" groups to promote far-right theologies and agendas within more moderate-to-liberal mainline denominations like the United Methodist Church.

[Tom]

Why don't you complain to the insects about how much of the planet's surface they occupy? They're everywhere, literally. Hell, MICROSCOPIC ORGANISMS make up 90 percent of all the life on Earth. Why don't you ask them to shove over?

My 3 percent is academic in nature, but demonstrates my point that humans do not take up as much room on the planet as you believe. Yes, we require food and so forth, but still our effect is negligible. The rain forest occupies 16 percent of the land surface area of the planet, WAY more than we do even if you take into account agriculture, etc.

Do you think you can determine the healthy balance of a species's population? Do you wish to play God and restrict our growth? Because I can think of some people who also employed "population control". Stalin did away with 40 million of his own people because they were a "drain" on his resources, or dissented with him (or seemed to in his own mind). Do not be so quick to judge the human's race suitability for survival, thank you.

So merely pointing out that the world is overpopulated gets you compared to Stalin. Brilliance.

Comparing humans to microorganisms and the rainforest? Not so brilliant.

[AJTalon]

AJ,

You seem to be taking the idea of over-population personally.

It's not just "room" involved. It's resources, impact, etc. How much farmland does it take to feed that "3%"? How much raw raw materials are needed for construction, etc.

Sure, overpopulation isn't the only cause of poverty in the world. Saying that would be bone-ignorant. But over-population is an issue.

Plus, when you look at it on a local level, there certainly are areas that are over-populated compared to others.

The idea that poverty is the result of there being too many people just REALLY grates on me because it's the same idea behind Stalin's purges and the Khmr Rouge's actions. And it's dead wrong.

I simply think there is a difference between cities being crowded and a large population requiring large amounts of resources, and overpopulation. I am wary of "population control" measures or proposals because the duty of a government is to protect it's citizens, not micromanage every aspect of their lives.

If people are concerned about how much room they have on the surface of the planet, there are plenty of alternatives to population control by the government. Already there are proposals for airports to be built on water. Underground cities. Aerial cities. And do not discount human ingenuity to problems like this.

But until everyone is enjoying the same level of comfort and quality of life that these proponents of population control enjoy, I will not heed their ideas.

I do not think you are one of these people Typo Lad, and your ideas are not without merit. I simply think that overpopulation is not an issue, and will not be for a very long time. And if we get out into space then it will no longer be an issue.

[Typo Lad]

By "not an issue" do you mean "at all" or in regards to poverty?

I think you're making some very sweeping statements. I also think, based on a bunch of posts of yours I'm reading, that you seem to think there are only two sides to every issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_thinking). Feel free to correct me if I am mis-reading.

The thing is, more than one thing can be a cause. Too many people in a set area for too few resources can, indeed be a factor. Of course, the logical solution to me is to up the amount of resources, but I'm silly like that.

Getting back to the original topic... the idea of Surgeon General who seems to not to be up to date on the prevalant scientific view of homosexulaity is a bit odd.

[Tom]

The idea that poverty is the result of there being too many people just REALLY grates on me because it's the same idea behind Stalin's purges and the Khmr Rouge's actions. And it's dead wrong.


Of course, the only person in this thread who linked poverty to overpopulation was...you.

[Mac Danny]

Another place that is overcrowded...




My PANTS!

BTW, this surgeon general Choice is good for W. I would have thought he'd nominate Dr. Seuss

http://www.milechai.com/product/children_hebrewbooks/dr-suess-images/dr-seuss-L.jpg

Actually that might not be bad. He at least looks Koopish..

[AJTalon]

Of course, the only person in this thread who linked poverty to overpopulation was...you.

I got off topic. I was of the understanding it happened frequently here.


By "not an issue" do you mean "at all" or in regards to poverty?

I think you're making some very sweeping statements. I also think, based on a bunch of posts of yours I'm reading, that you seem to think there are only two sides to every issue. Feel free to correct me if I am mis-reading.

The thing is, more than one thing can be a cause. Too many people in a set area for too few resources can, indeed be a factor. Of course, the logical solution to me is to up the amount of resources, but I'm silly like that.

Getting back to the original topic... the idea of Surgeon General who seems to not to be up to date on the prevalant scientific view of homosexulaity is a bit odd.

Again, I demonstrate how I lose focus in the debate and go off-topic. My apologies. Of course your statements are logical, I merely interpreted them incorrectly.

Original Topic: What is the prevalent scientific view of homosexuality? And how does this apply to Dr. Holsinger's report, which only studies the physical aspects of the action? Which can also be construed to apply to anal sex in general.

[Tom]

I got off topic. I was of the understanding it happened frequently here.It's perfectly fine to go off-topic, but you were comparing people on this thread to Stalin for god's sake. If you want to argue a point with someone, it would be better if you argued against the things that people actually say before you start comparing them to genocidal dictators.

[AJTalon]

It's perfectly fine to go off-topic, but you were comparing people on this thread to Stalin for god's sake. If you want to argue a point with someone, it would be better if you argued against the things that people actually say before you start comparing them to genocidal dictators.

I apologize, again. I jump to conclusions too easily.

[Mac Danny]

I got off topic. I was of the understanding it happened frequently here.




Again, I demonstrate how I lose focus in the debate and go off-topic. My apologies. Of course your statements are logical, I merely interpreted them incorrectly.

Original Topic: What is the prevalent scientific view of homosexuality? And how does this apply to Dr. Holsinger's report, which only studies the physical aspects of the action? Which can also be construed to apply to anal sex in general.

I am very curious to read Dr. Holsinger's report on the Diagnostic techniques of Phrenology.

[Bradley]

Of course, he got away with it because, however much you want to pretend otherwise, it isn't a scientific paper at all. As such, it wasn't subject to peer review or any other procedure to make certain the views presented were concordant with reality. The paper was, after all, prepared as a presentation to a church group to which this crappy doc is, or at least was at the time, a member.

I just thought this needed to be highlighted-- this "paper" (if we can even call it that) was written to promote a social and political agenda and was presented to a like-minded, non-academic audience. Dr. Holsinger's ridiculous ideas about homosexuality have not been subjected to the vigorous scrutiny of the peer review process because he isn't willing to subject his work to such serious scrutiny.

Seriously, would you nominate someone who only wrote Mr. Belvedere fan fiction to the position of poet laureate? Would you make someone who's watched a lot of war movies but never studied military history your most trusted national security advisor? I know I would prefer that people in positions of authority actually be, y'know, qualified. But perhaps others feel differently.

[moebius]

Seriously, would you nominate someone who only wrote Mr. Belvedere fan fiction to the position of poet laureate?

You insult me, Sir...and I demand satisfaction!

[Bradley]

You insult me, Sir...and I demand satisfaction!

No, no-- you misunderstand. I still think Mr. Belvedere fan fiction is vastly underappreciated by the academy and by society at large-- but it's prose, you see, and I said poet laureate.

[Nick Soapdish]

Hmm, yes, thinking all humans are scum and should only get what a bunch of environmentalists who live in luxury think they should IS far more realistic.


No idea what you're talking about. The idea that the planet isn't solely for our benefit?

A bunch of environmentalists believe that keeping ecosystems as intact as possible is a good idea also because of the benefits that it gives us - whether it's protection from man's own actions, protection against nature, ecological diversity which allows us to modify crops more easily, and just plain aesthetics. Fishermen and sportsmen are often among this number.


I was using the model for basic living space, which is, yes, merely academic in it's applications. But it still makes the point that overpopulation is not a real problem.


Unless you also take into consideration the ecological footprint of people. They need more than just living space. They also need space for crops or livestock to be grown to sustain them. Forests and mines for building materials. And maybe something or another for energy.

The average acreage (converting energy production, food production, recapture of pollution, and other resources) available as a footprint for each human is 1.9 hectares. The US uses 9.5 acres per citizen.

It's not just about living space. It's about everything that we use to live.


So what? It still doesn't make overpopulation an actual problem for our species to face.


You mentioned that the Amazon takes up 16% of the world. That 16% is currently supporting our energy habits by absorbing carbon emissions which slow the warming of the atmosphere. If we cut them down and make them into cities, it'll warm the atmosphere up (by releasing that carbon into the atmosphere) and it'll stop absorbing carbon. Which will lead to us losing more living space as the seas rise.

There is plenty of "space" to stick people in. Space isn't the main limiting factor. It's resources. And we don't have space to generate new resources from with a few exceptions, such as wind farms in the ocean. Solar capture devices in space may work, although there are huge problems with it at the moment.


I'm afraid that I'll be ignoring the rest because Jeffrey and others are handling it quite ably.

[Justin Davis]

A new Surgeon general HHHmmmmm. He definetly has the crudenials to do the job. There definitely needs to be some changes. His article regarding children is an issue alone that is very good. Could be a good thing. OH I forgot this thread is about Homosexuality.

This thread isn't about homosexuality.

It's about the nomination of a man to a position he isn't qualified for because he thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy, going so far as to resign from the committee who he wrote the paper for when it wanted to revise it's standing on homosexuality. I don't have a problem with the paper being full of outdated ideas. Although, the outdated ideas seem like they reach much further back than 1991, when the paper was published. What I have a problem with is that Holsinger has done nothing in those 16 years to amend his statements or distance himself from the paper. In fact, he's done the opposite by aligning himself with groups that use what they call reparative therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy).

People are trying to say his religious beliefs should have nothing to do with why he should be refused the position. However, it's mostly his religious beliefs that garnered him the nomination to begin with.

I'll use the NASA analogy again. I've been nominated to be the new head of the space program, but people don't want me to have that position because I wrote a paper a decade ago about my conversations with Martians, how they want to forge a union between our planets, and how the Grand Canyon is actually a scar created on our planet thanks to an undocumented attack on our planet that the Martians saved us from. Is it fair to say I shouldn't get that position if I'm qualified in other areas even if I've been supporting my "Martians talk to me and check out the Grand Canyon" cause? What about if I was chosen to be the head of the space program specifically because of that cause?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Original Topic: What is the prevalent scientific view of homosexuality? And how does this apply to Dr. Holsinger's report, which only studies the physical aspects of the action? Which can also be construed to apply to anal sex in general.

The prevalent scientific and medical view of homosexuality is that it is a complex phenomena, but that it is neither unnatural nor a pathology. Psychiatrically, homosexuality has not been classified as a disorder for decades now, for the simple fact that there is nothing "disordered" or innately dysfunctional about it. Scientifically, it is not lesser than any other sort of sexual behavior - it is simply different.

Dr. Holsinger's report tosses in a bunch of false assumptions about sexuality, including the focus on procreation. What this ignores is that in humans and in other species, sexuality takes a lot of forms and serves a lot of purposes other than/in addition to procreation. The point of view in question is not a scientific or medical one, but rather a religiously-derived, moralistic one - i.e., the false idea that the only "purpose" or "proper reason for" sexual behavior is to produce babies.

Regarding anal sex - the act itself occurs pretty regularly among gay men, straight folk and even some lesbians (using something other than a penis to penetrate, obviously). There are certain health risks to it. These risks are more or less identical, regardless of the gender of the participants - with the exception that fluid-borne STDs are obviously less likely to be passed along if the participants are, for example, two women using toys or somesuch (though there are separate risks to that behavior). The vast majority of the time, anal sex doesn't produce any long-term physical injury or consequences, particularly if the participants use intelligent precautions (lubrication, etc.), but the risks are still there. Risks are part of life, though, and it's interesting how some people focus differentially on certain risks which support their preexisting biases, and ignore the other ones.

[Loren]

Seriously, would you nominate someone who only wrote Mr. Belvedere fan fiction to the position of poet laureate? Would you make someone who's watched a lot of war movies but never studied military history your most trusted national security advisor? I know I would prefer that people in positions of authority actually be, y'know, qualified. But perhaps others feel differently.

But is this analogous to Helsinger? According to Wikipedia, here are his qualifications:

Holsinger graduated from Duke University with a M.D. in 1964, and a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology in 1968. He also graduated from the University of South Carolina with a M.S. in hospital financial management in 1981. He also holds a B.A. from the University of Kentucky in human studies as well as a Master of Arts (postgraduate) in biblical studies from Asbury Theological Seminary.

He completed residencies in general surgery at Duke Hospital, Durham, North Carolina, and Shands Teaching Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, and a fellowship in cardiology at the University of Florida. From 1964 to 2006, Holsinger published 4 medical books and 61 peer-reviewed papers...

Holsinger served for 26 years in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs from 1969 to 1994.[6] During his career, he served at five different hospitals starting as a Research and Education Associate, becoming a Chief of Staff, and then a Medical Center Director.[5] In 1990, President George H. W. Bush appointed Holsinger as 13th Chief Medical Director (title changed to Undersecretary for Health in 1992) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).[7] He implemented the VA-DOD Contingency Hospital System, which was capable of providing 25,000 beds within 72 hours in support of America's armed forces fighting in Kuwait during the first Iraq War.[8] He served simultaneously as Assistant to the Director for Logistics (J4) for Medical Support on the Joint Staff.[5]

While chief medical director, he oversaw the nation's largest health care system with facilities in all 50 states. This system served 1 million in-patients and provided 20 million out-patient visits. Holsinger developed health care policy for 26 million veterans.

From 1994 to 2003, Holsinger served as Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center with responsibility for the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Health Sciences, and Dentistry. In addition he provided oversight for the School of Public Health, four degree-granting graduate centers, the University Hospital, and the University of Kentucky Children’s Hospital.[14] While Holsinger was chancellor, he helped establish UK's College of Public Health, added a doctorate program in nursing practice and one in rehabilitation sciences. Under Holsinger, the university built the Gill Heart Institute, the Biomedical/Biological Sciences Research Building and the Bosomworth Health Sciences Research Building. Holsinger laid the groundwork for the expansion the hospital has undergone since he left.[15]

After spending two years in Kentucky state government on the governor's cabinet as Secretary of Health and Family Services, he returned to the University of Kentucky faculty on December 10, 2005. He currently serves as the Charles T. Wethington Jr. Chair in the Health Sciences at the University.[7]His faculty appointments include Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health and Health Services Management in the College of Public Health; and Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anatomy in the College of Medicine.[5]

In 2004, Holsinger was chosen a Master in the American College of Physicians by his peers noting outstanding achievement in internal medicine[27]. From 1994 until 2003, Holsinger served on 14 different boards at the University of Kentucky, including Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Advisory Committee, Center for Rural Health Advisory Board, and Kentucky Psychiatric Providers.

Now whether that's enough, or whether Helsinger's negatives outweigh his qualifications, is a different matter. But the qualifications he does have go well beyond the medical equivalent of writing only sitcom fanfic, or learning everything he knows about medicine from episodes of House and ER.

[Michael P]

Original Topic: What is the prevalent scientific view of homosexuality? And how does this apply to Dr. Holsinger's report, which only studies the physical aspects of the action? Which can also be construed to apply to anal sex in general.

I would like to see someone answer this. I would, but I'm not smart or well-read enough in the subject to do it.

And hey, Jeff did it while I was posting.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In fact, he's done the opposite by aligning himself with groups that use what they call reparative therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy).

Another POV which is completely contrary to prevailing medical opinion. The prevailing opinion of the AMA, the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations, the NASW, etc. is that therapy aimed at "correcting" or "repairing" homosexual orientation constitutes an inappropriate and dangerous practice. So, essentially, this guy is advocating for a dangerous and discredited practice.

Yeah, that's a great stance for a Surgeon General candidate.

[Bradley]

But is this analogous to Helsinger? According to Wikipedia, here are his qualifications:



Now whether that's enough, or whether Helsinger's negatives outweigh his qualifications, is a different matter. But the qualifications he does have go well beyond the medical equivalent of writing only sitcom fanfic, or learning everything he knows about medicine from episodes of House and ER.


You're right, of course. I was exaggerating for comedic effect.

But the truth is, yeah, I do believe that any qualifications he has are undermined by his devotion to ideology over science. And his willingness to use his credentials as a physician to promote a social agenda that disregards scientific facts and the expert opinions of the collective medical community does make him unqualified for the position.

[Paul McEnery]

Heh.

Nominating this fuqtarded antiscientist is the political equivalent of the way this thread turned out.

And that's the point.

Too bad we can't use the ignore button for Georgey boy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But the truth is, yeah, I do believe that any qualifications he has are undermined by his devotion to ideology over science.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a primary qualification for Bush Administration nominees.

[AJTalon]

Unfortunately, this seems to be a primary qualification for Bush Administration nominees.

And President Clinton's weren't?

[Spike-X]

And President Clinton's weren't?
We're not talking about Clinton.

Focus.

[Bradley]

And President Clinton's weren't?

Which of Clinton's appointments to medical or scientific posts can you name who placed ideology over science?

[Loren]

You're right, of course. I was exaggerating for comedic effect.

OK. I couldn't be sure, since this thread had managed to go 5 pages without anyone mentioning anything about any of his qualifications. The simple fact that he's an M.D. barely got mentioned.

But the truth is, yeah, I do believe that any qualifications he has are undermined by his devotion to ideology over science.

Is this supposed to be exaggeration too? Because "devotion" is a strong word when your evidence for this supposed devotion to ideology over science is a single paper, presented to a non-scientific audience, 16 years ago. On a subject, lest we forget, that has undergone a substantial shift in public opinion during those past 16 years.

[AJTalon]

OK. I couldn't be sure, since this thread had managed to go 5 pages without anyone mentioning anything about any of his qualifications. The simple fact that he's an M.D. barely got mentioned.



Is this supposed to be exaggeration too? Because "devotion" is a strong word when your evidence for this supposed devotion to ideology over science is a single paper, presented to a non-scientific audience, 16 years ago. On a subject, lest we forget, that has undergone a substantial shift in public opinion during those past 16 years.

Gah, I can't believe I missed that! The 16 years thing. Great, I've been arguing on a false premise. I'm happy you caught it.

[Loren]

Which of Clinton's appointments to medical or scientific posts can you name who placed ideology over science?

It's not a matter of ideology, but as long as we're talking qualifications for Surgeon General, here's a fun fact:

Clinton's first Surgeon General, Robert Whitney, wasn't an M.D. at all. He was a veterinarian. (And for full disclosure, he was an Acting Surgeon General, and only served for a matter of months.)

[Bradley]

OK. I couldn't be sure, since this thread had managed to go 5 pages without anyone mentioning anything about any of his qualifications. The simple fact that he's an M.D. barely got mentioned.

Well, the fact that he has some qualifications doesn't make him qualified precisely. Yes, he's a doctor. It's not like Bush has nominated James Dobson to the position or something. But he still doesn't have what it takes to be the Surgeon General, in my opinion.

Is this supposed to be exaggeration too? Because "devotion" is a strong word when your evidence for this supposed devotion to ideology over science is a single paper, presented to a non-scientific audience, 16 years ago. On a subject, lest we forget, that has undergone a substantial shift in public opinion during those past 16 years.

No-- in the medical community, the "subject" has consistently been understood for over three decades. Even setting aside his "paper," Dr. Holsinger has been an advocate for "reparative therapy" for homosexuality (through his work with the Hope Springs Community Church). He's a physician who has willfully remained out-of-step with the medical community for 33 years because of ideology-- I don't think the word "devotion" in such a case is too strong at all.

I appreciate your point-of-view on this, Loren-- I think, if I understand your objections, you don't want to see a person's religious convictions used to disqualify him from a post for which he's otherwise qualified. But I don't think he's otherwise qualified anyway; I think he's been nominated by a president whose approval rating is hovering at around 30% in a cynical effort to shore up support from his conservative Christian base.

[Bradley]

It's not a matter of ideology, but as long as we're talking qualifications for Surgeon General, here's a fun fact:

Clinton's first Surgeon General, Robert Whitney, wasn't an M.D. at all. He was a veterinarian. (And for full disclosure, he was an Acting Surgeon General, and only served for a matter of months.)

Actually, that is a really fun fact. Could they not find an M.D. people could agree on?

I suppose I could look this up for myself...

Thanks, though. I like to dazzle my wife with bits of trivia like this, and she gets home from a two-week stay in Japan tonight. She'll be so pleased to find that I've been learning stuff while she's been gone...

[Shellhead]

"Brownie, you're doing a helluva job!"

[Justin Davis]

Gah, I can't believe I missed that! The 16 years thing. Great, I've been arguing on a false premise. I'm happy you caught it.

You have been arguing on a false premise. By the way, that makes your argument look weaker, not stronger because you were arguing on a false premise, not against one.

[Paul McEnery]

"Brownie, you're doing a helluva job!"

If Bush were running a superteam, it would be the Great Lakes Avengers.

No, wait. They can actually do stuff.

[Chris Nowlin]

If Bush were running a superteam, it would be the Great Lakes Avengers.

No, wait. They can actually do stuff.

There's nobody in the Bush administration nearly as qualified at anything as Squirrel Girl.

[Paul McEnery]

There's nobody in the Bush administration nearly as qualified at anything as Squirrel Girl.

Oh I don't know.

I heard that Condi can store nuts in her cheeks.

[Samurai]

Cannibalism, especially parents and young ones eating their offspring or young siblings, is also found in nature. That doesn't mean its perfectly natural and something humans should not be offended by when a person does it.

Second, the instance of VD, especially HIV/AIDS is far higher among the gay community (and IV drug users) than the straight community. So, having sex with gay males is, in general, more dangerous (among lesbians, somewhat less dangerous).

Sounds like this doctor is willing to come out and state the hard facts, despite what's PC. That's needed in a Surgeon General...

[Spike-X]

Cannibalism, especially parents and young ones eating their offspring or young siblings, is also found in nature. That doesn't mean its perfectly natural and something humans should not be offended by when a person does it.



Did you just...?

Oboy.

[Chris Nowlin]

Cannibalism, especially parents and young ones eating their offspring or young siblings, is also found in nature. That doesn't mean its perfectly natural and something humans should not be offended by when a person does it.

I'm probably missing your point. You're just refuting an argument that "natural=good", I assume.

Because implicitly, it sounds like you're suggesting homosexuality is something that is natural and bad. Like cannibalism.

I don't mean to give your post an impoverished reading, though.

[Mike Smash!]

Did you just...?

Oboy.Yes. Yes, he did.

[Paul McEnery]

Cannibalism, especially parents and young ones eating their offspring or young siblings, is also found in nature. That doesn't mean its perfectly natural and something humans should not be offended by when a person does it.

Second, the instance of VD, especially HIV/AIDS is far higher among the gay community (and IV drug users) than the straight community. So, having sex with gay males is, in general, more dangerous (among lesbians, somewhat less dangerous).

Sounds like this doctor is willing to come out and state the hard facts, despite what's PC. That's needed in a Surgeon General...

Do you really not understand that saying this sort of thing is the equivalent of telling a Sicilian gangster he's "part nigger" (like in True Romance)?

I mean, seriously, what's the point of this?

[Chris Nowlin]

Second, the instance of VD, especially HIV/AIDS is far higher among the gay community (and IV drug users) than the straight community. So, having sex with gay males is, in general, more dangerous (among lesbians, somewhat less dangerous).


In the US, according to http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm, AIDS is more prevalent among black people than other races.

So, having sex with black people is, in general, more dangerous.

[Iangould]

My 3 percent is academic in nature, but demonstrates my point that humans do not take up as much room on the planet as you believe. Yes, we require food and so forth, but still our effect is negligible. The rain forest occupies 16 percent of the land surface area of the planet, WAY more than we do even if you take into account agriculture, etc.


Your figure for the rainforest is wrong.

Your estimate of the land area used by agriculture is wrong.

The human race currently uses 70% of the available biological resources of the world.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm probably missing your point. You're just refuting an argument that "natural=good", I assume.

Because implicitly, it sounds like you're suggesting homosexuality is something that is natural and bad. Like cannibalism.

I don't mean to give your post an impoverished reading, though.

Can we have a Hunting of the Snark digest?

[Iangould]

I do not think you are one of these people Typo Lad, and your ideas are not without merit. I simply think that overpopulation is not an issue,

Explain that to some woman in south Asia with five kids and no access to birth control trying to survive on less than a dollar a day.

But hey if we blame it all on "bad economic policies" we can wash our hands of any obligation to help people.

(Before you get offended by that last para contrast it with your comparison of environmentalists with Stalin.)

[Tom]

Did you just...?
Desperately, pathetically throw out any argument he could find, no matter how ludicrous, to support a conservative point of view because the wrong people are criticizing it?

What do you think?

[Spike-X]

Desperately, pathetically throw out any argument he could find, no matter how ludicrous, to support a conservative point of view because the wrong people are criticizing it?

What do you think?
I think that would be completely out of character.

[Mac Danny]

Do you really not understand that saying this sort of thing is the equivalent of telling a Sicilian gangster he's "part nigger" (like in True Romance)?

I mean, seriously, what's the point of this?

Yeah, Wow.. So being gay is like eating people..

That is a leap.. Samuri is a gas can tonight

[Mac Danny]

Cannibalism, especially parents and young ones eating their offspring or young siblings, is also found in nature. That doesn't mean its perfectly natural and something humans should not be offended by when a person does it.

Second, the instance of VD, especially HIV/AIDS is far higher among the gay community (and IV drug users) than the straight community. So, having sex with gay males is, in general, more dangerous (among lesbians, somewhat less dangerous).

Sounds like this doctor is willing to come out and state the hard facts, despite what's PC. That's needed in a Surgeon General...

You know what else is perfectly natural? Dying. Dying is bad for your health. So if you die you must be gay.

Somebody get this guy a Duck and a witch.

[Iangould]

Oh I don't know.

I heard that Condi can store nuts in her cheeks.

Great now I can't get rid of the mental image of Dick Cheney hitting people with his nut sack.

[Iangould]

Second, the instance of VD, especially HIV/AIDS is far higher among the gay community (and IV drug users) than the straight community. So, having sex with gay males is, in general, more dangerous (among lesbians, somewhat less dangerous).

Yes and there's a clear correlation between the percentage of born-again Christians in a community and the incidence of murder; poverty; teen pregnancy and meth addiction.

So by your reasoning, the US needs a Surgeon General who advocates re-education for Christian fundamentalists.

[Samurai]

I'm probably missing your point. You're just refuting an argument that "natural=good", I assume.

Because implicitly, it sounds like you're suggesting homosexuality is something that is natural and bad. Like cannibalism.

I don't mean to give your post an impoverished reading, though.

Yes, I was pointing out the sloppy "some animals do it, therefore it must be perfectly natural and acceptable" argument. No where did I say "gay = cannibals", I'm pointing out the fallacy in the all too common "gay animals = gay people are thus natural and should be socially acceptable" Maybe it should be, maybe not, but "animals do it too" doesn't support the argument one bit.

[Samurai]

Yes and there's a clear correlation between the percentage of born-again Christians in a community and the incidence of murder; poverty; teen pregnancy and meth addiction.

So by your reasoning, the US needs a Surgeon General who advocates re-education for Christian fundamentalists.

I rather doubt that born again Christians are more violent or more prone to meth. You need to support your claims.

[Chris Nowlin]

Yes, I was pointing out the sloppy "some animals do it, therefore it must be perfectly natural and acceptable" argument. No where did I say "gay = cannibals", I'm pointing out the fallacy in the all too common "gay animals = gay people are thus natural and should be socially acceptable" Maybe it should be, maybe not, but "animals do it too" doesn't support the argument one bit.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

[Samurai]

In the US, according to http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm, AIDS is more prevalent among black people than other races.

So, having sex with black people is, in general, more dangerous.

Yes, if those stats are correct, by about 4x the risk. Gay men, on the other hand, according to your source have about 30x the chance to have HIV/AIDS as the general populace. IV drug users also have a substantially higher risk, as would prostitutes and serial philanderers. Doesn't mean all people from these groups are infected, just that the risk is higher, and thus, on average, more dangerous. Individual cases can buck the averages, of course.

[Samurai]

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Cute attempt at selective bolding to try and change my meaning...

[Chris Nowlin]

Cute attempt at selective bolding to try and change my meaning...

Is that better?

[Samurai]

Is that better?

Yes, it is. Thank you.

[Spike-X]

Yes, I was pointing out the sloppy "some animals do it, therefore it must be perfectly natural and acceptable" argument. No where did I say "gay = cannibals", I'm pointing out the fallacy in the all too common "gay animals = gay people are thus natural and should be socially acceptable" Maybe it should be, maybe not, but "animals do it too" doesn't support the argument one bit.
I see your point, but really, making it in that fashion was just asking for trouble, don't you think?

[Jeff Brady]

Yes, I was pointing out the sloppy "some animals do it, therefore it must be perfectly natural and acceptable" argument. No where did I say "gay = cannibals", I'm pointing out the fallacy in the all too common "gay animals = gay people are thus natural and should be socially acceptable" Maybe it should be, maybe not, but "animals do it too" doesn't support the argument one bit.

Whereas cannibalism infringes upon the rights of others to live, and homosexuality does not. It's hardly "sloppy."

[Samurai]

I see your point, but really, making it in that fashion was just asking for trouble, don't you think?

No. Because people will just read into it whatever they like, no matter how innocuous. I could have just said "not everything animals do is commendable and should be socially acceptable", but then there's the inevitable "Like what?"

[Samurai]

Whereas cannibalism infringes upon the rights of others to live, and homosexuality does not. It's hardly "sloppy."

"Does not infringe upon the lives of others" does not equal "Is therefore socially acceptable and natural." There are plenty of examples, but it seems examples are bad... Besides, cannibalism can mean eating people who die from other causes, not necessarily murder. Does that make it ok, if you eat someone who died of a heart attack or car accident?

[Jeff Brady]

"Does not infringe upon the lives of others" does not equal "Is therefore socially acceptable and natural." There are plenty of examples, but it seems examples are bad... Besides, cannibalism can mean eating people who die from other causes, not necessarily murder. Does that make it ok, if you eat someone who died of a heart attack or car accident?

I don't see a problem with it. The grieving families might, but the bodies are going to be eaten one way or another. Humans or worms, it doesn't matter to me.

[Cyke]

"Does not infringe upon the lives of others" does not equal "Is therefore socially acceptable and natural." There are plenty of examples, but it seems examples are bad... Besides, cannibalism can mean eating people who die from other causes, not necessarily murder. Does that make it ok, if you eat someone who died of a heart attack or car accident?

Or an avalanche? Or if Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashes?

Sorry, I'm aware it's a cheap shot, but it's a shot nonetheless. One extreme case deserves another.

[Spike-X]

"Does not infringe upon the lives of others" does not equal "Is therefore socially acceptable and natural." There are plenty of examples, but it seems examples are bad... Besides, cannibalism can mean eating people who die from other causes, not necessarily murder. Does that make it ok, if you eat someone who died of a heart attack or car accident?
Waste not, want not...

[Samurai]

Or an avalanche? Or if Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashes?

Sorry, I'm aware it's a cheap shot, but it's a shot nonetheless. One extreme case deserves another.

Extreme circumstances of life or death by starvation is not the same as generally acceptable to the public and society at large.

[Iangould]

I rather doubt that born again Christians are more violent or more prone to meth. You need to support your claims.

I've offered exactly as much, or as little, evidence of my position as you have for yours.

As for evidence - just take a look at the murder rate in the American south and at the incidence of meth addiction.

Both are higher in the areas where the incidence of born again Christians are also higher.

[Samurai]

I've offered exactly as much, or as little, evidence of my position as you have for yours.

As for evidence - just take a look at the murder rate in the American south and at the incidence of meth addiction.

Both are higher in the areas where the incidence of born again Christians are also higher.

"My position"? Which one? That gay men have a higher chance of having HIV or AIDs? That was in the link showing the breakdown of patients by various categories. That some animals eat their young? It's a fact, look it up. So what are you talking about exactly?

And the American south (as well as most inner cities) also has a much higher percentage of African-Americans, for whom we know the murder rate is 10x that of non-hispanic whites, and the rate of drug abuse is higher as well. That is probably what's affecting the southern numbers, not white Christians.

[Iangould]

Where did "white" Christians coem from?

Ah I'm forgetting blacks, like liberals, are never really Christians.

It comes from not having souls.

As for murder statistics:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm#list

"Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central, West South Central, and the South Atlantic regions."

South Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
East South Central Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee
West South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religions_of_the_US.PNG

The correlation between Baptists specifically and murder rates is at least as strong as the correlation between homosexuals and VD - and just as spurious.

[Samurai]

Where did "white" Christians coem from?

Ah I'm forgetting blacks, like liberals, are never really Christians.

It comes from not having souls.

As for murder statistics:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm#list

"Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central, West South Central, and the South Atlantic regions."

South Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
East South Central Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee
West South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religions_of_the_US.PNG

The correlation between Baptists specifically and murder rates is at least as strong as the correlation between homosexuals and VD - and just as spurious.
No, it's not the same. Not even close. Actual studies of actual AIDS and HIV patients show that about 60% of men with the disease got it from gay sex. To compare that to a completely spurious conjecture like "The south has more homicides and more born again Christians, therefore born agains must be responsible", without showing any crime statistics or a bunch of cases where born agains go on killing sprees or anything at all tying the 2 besides geographic overlap, is just plain silly.

[Wesley Dodds]

Sounds like this doctor is willing to come out and state the hard facts, despite what's PC. That's needed in a Surgeon General...

Two points:

1. In the paper Holsinger is using a special definition of natural. He's not talking about genetics (homosexuality occurs naturally). He's talking about function (if you don't lube properly you'll damage the anus).

2. His argument doesn't apply just to homosexuals but to anal sex generally.

Basically, his argument is that the ass is fragile so we shouldn't stick things in it (or, at least, you have to remember to lube properly -- and always adequately dilate the anus first).

Note his conclusion: "When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above." But anal sex doesn't always breach the "complementarity of the sexes".

My question to you is: why would focus on gay sex instead of anal sex more generally?

On a lighter note, I hope they ask him about vaginal tears during childbirth during the confirmation hearings. Because if he's intellectually consistent (and honest) he'll tell Congress that childbirth is God's punishment for Eve's sin.

[Alex]

On a lighter note, I hope they ask him about vaginal tears during childbirth during the confirmation hearings. Because if he's intellectually consistent (and honest) he'll tell Congress that childbirth is God's punishment for Eve's sin.

Well, it is.
Bitch eating the goddamn apple.

[Wesley Dodds]

Actually, I have to also point out that his arguments against anal sex also apply to child birth. Remember, he's not talking about natural in the sense of function. By his logic, childbirth is not natural because it is hideously painful and damages the female body.

In other words, to prove that homosexuality is unnatural, he's started from a stupid/dishonest definition of natural.

But if he points out that gay people are diseased on TV a lot, I guess then he'd be OK as Surgeon-General?

[Wesley Dodds]

Bitch eating the goddamn apple.

This guy should write for Reader's Digest.

"I am John's ass. Things go out, not in. Remember to lube!"

[Alex]

Actually, I have to also point out that his arguments against anal sex also apply to child birth. Remember, he's not talking about natural in the sense of function. By his logic, childbirth is not natural because it is hideously painful and damages the female body.


Hmm, i don't follow you on this one.
Childbirth has been painful since childbirth started, it's ment to be painful.
Scientificly, its painful because a woman is shooting a baby out of something that fits my penis.
Religion wise, childbirth is painful because Eve didn't want to be stupid and happy.

[Wesley Dodds]

Basically, in the paper he says at the start that he doesn't mean natural in the sense of "what's natural", he means it in the sense of how things fit together.

Penis doesn't hurt vagina... good!

Penis hurts anus... bad.

Baby hurts vagina... um, Eve did it.

[Alex]

Penis doesn't hurt vagina... good!

Penis hurts anus... bad.

Baby hurts vagina... um, Eve did it.

But penis can hurt vagina.
And this isn't me calling his penis small, rough sex can make vagina hurt, sex after a period of no sex can cause the vagina to hurt, long periods of sex can make the penis hurt the vagina.
Even bible approved, missionary style sex soley for the purpose of making a baby can hurt the vagina, depending on the vagina, or vaginas, in question.
Does that mean sex is also unnatural?

[Wesley Dodds]

Does that mean sex is also unnatural?

Yep. Logically.

[Alex]

Does that mean sex is also unnatural?

Yep. Logically.

Sounds like mr surgeon general nominee guy needs to get himself a piece of strange.

[Wesley Dodds]

Sounds like mr surgeon general nominee guy needs to get himself a piece of strange.

"Wow, you mean the rupture of the hymen is painful!? This changes my entire philosophy of the sexes! Quick, get me a rubber fist! I have... another... theory to test..."

[Calybos]

A nominee who offers such opinions on homosexuality betrays a total disconnect with the field he's supposed to be in charge of: medical practice. Which makes him a perfect Bush nominee.

It's like nominating a new head of NASA who believes in the flat-earth theory. "Hey, he's entitled to his opinion, right?" You bet--even when that "opinion" shows he's utterly unqualified for the job.

[moebius]

Two points:

1. In the paper Holsinger is using a special definition of natural. He's not talking about genetics (homosexuality occurs naturally). He's talking about function (if you don't lube properly you'll damage the anus).

2. His argument doesn't apply just to homosexuals but to anal sex generally.

Basically, his argument is that the ass is fragile so we shouldn't stick things in it (or, at least, you have to remember to lube properly -- and always adequately dilate the anus first).



So blowjobs are the closest thing humans can get to sexual perfection? Somehow, I don't think it should take a medical professional to tell you that.

[Samurai]

Two points:

1. In the paper Holsinger is using a special definition of natural. He's not talking about genetics (homosexuality occurs naturally). He's talking about function (if you don't lube properly you'll damage the anus).

2. His argument doesn't apply just to homosexuals but to anal sex generally.

Basically, his argument is that the ass is fragile so we shouldn't stick things in it (or, at least, you have to remember to lube properly -- and always adequately dilate the anus first).

Note his conclusion: "When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above." But anal sex doesn't always breach the "complementarity of the sexes".

My question to you is: why would focus on gay sex instead of anal sex more generally?

On a lighter note, I hope they ask him about vaginal tears during childbirth during the confirmation hearings. Because if he's intellectually consistent (and honest) he'll tell Congress that childbirth is God's punishment for Eve's sin.

Actually, I have to also point out that his arguments against anal sex also apply to child birth. Remember, he's not talking about natural in the sense of function. By his logic, childbirth is not natural because it is hideously painful and damages the female body.

In other words, to prove that homosexuality is unnatural, he's started from a stupid/dishonest definition of natural.

But if he points out that gay people are diseased on TV a lot, I guess then he'd be OK as Surgeon-General?

You just contradicted yourself. First you said it wasn't genetics, it was function. Then you said it wasn't function. I haven't read the book, but from what I understand his point to be, it is about function. Tab A is meant to insert into slot B for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, it's "natural", in his opinion, even if or its result is sometimes painful. (Can you point out where he says pain is not natural? It's the body's natural response) On the other hand, tab A has no natural reason to be inserted into slots C,D or F, and can therefore be described as "unnatural", IHO.

And he also says that it's not about religion at all, so your Eve points are completely off target and not representative of his point at all.

[Kid Omega]

Since when did homosexuality become completely part and parcel with anal sex?

I mean... there's a bit more to being gay than just buggery.

[Alex]

Since when did homosexuality become completely part and parcel with anal sex?

I mean... there's a bit more to being gay than just buggery.

Anal sex is the most dangerous part of being gay.
Anal sex and walking down the street in alabama.

[Kid Omega]

Anal sex is the most dangerous part of being gay.
Anal sex and walking down the street in alabama.

Dude, that's ridiculous.

There are no streets in Alabama.

Just dark, lonely, dirt roads.

[Alex]

Dude, that's ridiculous.

There are no streets in Alabama.

Just dark, lonely, dirt roads.

Sorry, i never go to the south.
Gone With The Wind scared the crap out of me, place is full of women waiting to steal my soul.

[Jeff Brady]

Since when did homosexuality become completely part and parcel with anal sex?

I mean... there's a bit more to being gay than just buggery.

Yep, like interior design and fashion.

[Kid Omega]

Yep, like interior design and fashion.

And being fabulous.

(And having the candidate for Surgeon General try to "cure" you.... creeepy.)

[Wesley Dodds]

You just contradicted yourself. First you said it wasn't genetics, it was function.

It's a typo, Sam.

[Wesley Dodds]

I haven't read the book, but from what I understand his point to be, it is about function. Tab A is meant to insert into slot B for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, it's "natural", in his opinion, even if or its result is sometimes painful. (Can you point out where he says pain is not natural? It's the body's natural response) On the other hand, tab A has no natural reason to be inserted into slots C,D or F, and can therefore be described as "unnatural", IHO.

I don't think he says pain is not natural.

Basically, he's playing a word game. He's trying to prove that homosexuality is not natural by arguing that there's no functional reason. But for gay people there's an important functional reason: sex. And as sex and childbirth are both damaging, damage to the anus cannot be used as an argument against homosexuality.

[Jeff Brady]

As it is, homosexuality is a nice function of population control, and to care for children unwanted by their hetero creators.

[Nick Soapdish]

Yes, I was pointing out the sloppy "some animals do it, therefore it must be perfectly natural and acceptable" argument. No where did I say "gay = cannibals", I'm pointing out the fallacy in the all too common "gay animals = gay people are thus natural and should be socially acceptable" Maybe it should be, maybe not, but "animals do it too" doesn't support the argument one bit.

You're the one making the logical fallacy.

Person A argues that homosexuality is unnatural and unacceptable.
Person B argues that homosexuality is perfectly natural because animals do it.

That doesn't mean that Person B is arguing that homosexuality is using that part of the argument to state that homosexuality is acceptable. They are merely dispensing with the counterargument.

I agree that pretty much anybody making that counterargument believes that homosexuality is acceptable, but nobody here made that argument in this thread. So you're refuting an argument that Holsinger didn't refer to and that nobody else has referred to. And the "hard facts" that the surgeon general seems to be trying to tell us is that "cannibalism" doesn't occur in nature.

[Nick Soapdish]

And he also says that it's not about religion at all, so your Eve points are completely off target and not representative of his point at all.

Which is why he brought it up in a study for the United Methodists and specifically mentioned the existence of Biblical prohibitions?

[Cyke]

Extreme circumstances of life or death by starvation is not the same as generally acceptable to the public and society at large.

Uh huh, and cannibalism is not the same as an entire section of the US population who *isn't* considered diseased or mentally unbalanced by the AMA.

So your point is...?

[Shellhead]

A false syllogism:

All cats die.
Socrates is dead.
Therefore, Socrates is a cat.

[Nick Soapdish]

A false syllogism:

All cats die.
Socrates is dead.
Therefore, Socrates is a cat.

But that's the name of my cat.:D

Except my cat isn't dead.
And his name is Baxter.;)

[JeffreyWKramer]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/07/11/MNGCOQUE0K1.DTL&type=politics

And here Bush's former Surgeon General spills the beans about the Administration's policy of valuing ideology over science, fact and public safety.

President Bush's first surgeon general charged Tuesday that administration officials prevented him from providing the public with accurate scientific and medical information on such issues as stemcell research and teen pregnancy.

"The reality is that the 'nation's doctor' has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," Dr. Richard H. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation -- not the doctor of a political party."

Given the Administration's POV regarding such things, and given the stellar performance of so many ideology-over-competence Administration appointees such as Attorney General Gonzales, and also given this nominee's own record, it seems we have very ample reason to suspect that this guy has been selected not because he's the right person for the job, but because he'll just act as a mouthpiece for the Administration.

Personally, at this point in time, I think we'd be better off as going forward with no Surgeon General than going with the current nominee.

[Solaris]

...I simply think that overpopulation is not an issue, and will not be for a very long time. And if we get out into space then it will no longer be an issue.

Tell that to all the people in this world who are starving to death. Or don't have clean, potable water. The fact that you live in a country that has not only bountiful resources, but actually supplies a fair amount of food to the rest of the world, doesn't mean that everyone everywhere else has the same kind of plenty and luxury you do.

And hey, newsflash: we have gotten out into space... and it hasn't solved our overpopulation problems. Why?

Well, gee, first space travel is expensive. Maintaining a safe habitat in space is even *more* expensive... mainly because there are so many dangers that must be engineered to guard against (not to mention ensuring that everyone who lives there *understands* said dangers, and doesn't do something stupid that bolluxes the system). If you leave a hotplate on in your apartment, you may burn down the building. If you are a space resident and you screw something up, you may kill everyone in the facility. Not to mention, space habitats are more fragile than earth (as are water habitats)... accidents have a much greater likelihood of wiping out the entire group, because they have little time and a long way to go, in fleeing a disaster. If the station's on fire, you can't just "run outside" like you do in a house, after all.

As to "planetary colonies," it's gonna be a *long* time before we have the means to make this viable. For local planets we *could* reach now (albeit expensively), Mars is the best bet for things like terraformed domes... but constructing them would be unbelieveably expensive, nevermind the expense of simply *getting* a large number of people (say, oh, a million out of Earth's billions) *to* the planet. And you *still* face the difficulties I mentioned before: in the event of a disaster, total population wipe-out is much more likely than on Earth... simply because the planet outside the domes is hostile: not enough oxygen, and temperature extremes no one could survive for very long.

As to "Earth similar" planets... we haven't got the technology to get to them yet, much less move a massive amount of people to them; and even if we did, it would still take *years* of study to determine if our biologies would match or clash with the local environment, and what the dangers would be that the colony would face.

So, while the idea of "we'll just move on out into space" is a very pretty one (and quite dear to us longterm sf fans), the reality is that it will *not* be a viable alternative for dealing with overpopulation for centuries to come.

As to your objections to population control... you continue in comparing it to Stalin... yet the best population control is birth control, education, and addressing the needs of those cultures where more children = better support in your old age.

If Stalin was for those things, I've yet to hear of it.

[Solaris]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/07/11/MNGCOQUE0K1.DTL&type=politics

And here Bush's former Surgeon General spills the beans about the Administration's policy of valuing ideology over science, fact and public safety.



Given the Administration's POV regarding such things, and given the stellar performance of so many ideology-over-competence Administration appointees such as Attorney General Gonzales, and also given this nominee's own record, it seems we have very ample reason to suspect that this guy has been selected not because he's the right person for the job, but because he'll just act as a mouthpiece for the Administration.

Personally, at this point in time, I think we'd be better off as going forward with no Surgeon General than going with the current nominee.


Can't we get Koop back? I liked that he was for birth control education.

As for what you posted, I agree 100%. Better to have the office vacant and have things drift along for another couple of years, than to have an ignorant, active placeholder who uses his office to further ideological agendas that not only ignore, but harm, science and health education.

[Solaris]

You're the one making the logical fallacy.

Person A argues that homosexuality is unnatural and unacceptable.
Person B argues that homosexuality is perfectly natural because animals do it.

That doesn't mean that Person B is arguing that homosexuality is using that part of the argument to state that homosexuality is acceptable. They are merely dispensing with the counterargument.

I agree that pretty much anybody making that counterargument believes that homosexuality is acceptable, but nobody here made that argument in this thread. So you're refuting an argument that Holsinger didn't refer to and that nobody else has referred to. And the "hard facts" that the surgeon general seems to be trying to tell us is that "cannibalism" doesn't occur in nature.


"Natural" = occurs in Nature.

Arguing that homosexual sex isn't natural is like saying that eating isn't natural. When someone points out that animals eat, therefore it is natural, it's kinda nuts to say "no it's not."

The problem is the connotations we put with the word "Natural." Quite literally it means "something that occurs in Nature," but we often use it to mean "normal, approved, okay."

So, can we get over the "Natural" argument, Sam? If you want to argue that it's not normal, not approved, or not okay, then go ahead and do so... but saying it isn't natural is a denial of fact, since indeed it does occur in Nature.

[Samurai]

"Natural" = occurs in Nature.

Arguing that homosexual sex isn't natural is like saying that eating isn't natural. When someone points out that animals eat, therefore it is natural, it's kinda nuts to say "no it's not."

The problem is the connotations we put with the word "Natural." Quite literally it means "something that occurs in Nature," but we often use it to mean "normal, approved, okay."

So, can we get over the "Natural" argument, Sam? If you want to argue that it's not normal, not approved, or not okay, then go ahead and do so... but saying it isn't natural is a denial of fact, since indeed it does occur in Nature.
You quoted Nick, but said my name, not sure if you mean me or not. But look at the dates, this is a resurrected thread, I haven't been continuing to badger the point. Second, yes, it does occur in nature, for whatever reason (and we don't know if it is always genetically caused there either, animals do have social systems. In some species, some males may do it to show dominance over younger or weaker males, for instance.) But my whole point was that it seems pretty obvious the reason this is a popular argument among some folks is precisely because of the dual meanings for "natural" that you pointed out. "Animals do it, so it must be ok, normal, acceptable." It would not be repeated so often if the point was simply "animals do it, but that has no bearing on whether it should be acceptable for humans..." I was trying to show that "it occurs in nature/animals" should not always be a stamp of approval for human behavior.

[Solaris]

You quoted Nick, but said my name, not sure if you mean me or