Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays
Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays
Last week, President Bush nominated James W. Holsinger to become the next Surgeon General of the United States:
As America’s chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury. … I am confident that Dr. Holsinger will help our Nation confront this challenge and many others to ensure that Americans live longer, better, and healthier lives.
But as BarbinMD points out, Holsinger’s nomination to be “America’s doctor” is troubling. He has a long history of prejudice toward gays and lesbians. Some examples:
– Holsinger founded Hope Springs Community Church, which “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.” Holsinger said that he sees homosexuality as “an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]
– In serving on the United Methodist Judicial Council — the “court” that resolves “disputes involving church doctrine and policies in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination” — Holsinger “opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]
– In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality “because he believed the committee ‘would follow liberal lines.’” He also warned “that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.” [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 5/26/07; Time, 6/24/91]
Despite this history, Holsinger-supporter Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) inexplicably insists, “Anyone who knows Jim Holsinger knows that he’s not an individual given to prejudice.” A date for Holsinger’s Senate hearings has not been set.
UPDATE: Bible Belt Blogger has more on Holsinger.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
400 Responses to “Bush Nominates Homophobic Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hopefully the Congress will find it's spine and not confirm him. I'm not holding my breath though.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pmI wonder if he'll even last until the confirmation hearings.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pmAre you saying there's been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pmAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
June 1st, 2007 at 3:41 pmIs there nothing we can do to keep this messianic madman from giving this nation death by inches?
...or should we just consider ourselves refugees and save some time?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:41 pmit's a doctor, no it's a preacher, no it's a retarded moron from the nether regions of george's ass.....
a homophobic man that understands neither reason or science. perfect choice for the emperor
WHEN WILL YOU JERKS IN CONGRESS PUT AN END TO THIS NIGHTMARE?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pmQUICK CALL DARYLL!!!!
He can rejoice!!
June 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pmJake sez:
As homosexuality is not a disease...yes. That's exactly what we're saying.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pmSounds more like a candidate for surgeon buck private, no way the congress can approve this dufus.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pmJohn and Anne Paulk, for instance.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pmPatrick 1 ran a close second, but wasn't homophobic enough.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:48 pmI personally know a gay person who turned back to a heterosexual marriage. What's so wrong about that? It's because the gay community goes ape when you attack their base premise: It's genetic. They shut down anyone who talks about giving up the lifestyle as if you can never turn back. This is one of the most hypocritical components of the gay community. Everyone should be free to follow their desires except for those that were gay. There is no going back - period. Diversity doesn't include former gay people. They are just "fighting" their true self. What hogwash.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm"Surgeon General Who Wants To Cure Gays"
--Start with the right wing, surely there's a lifetime of work waiting.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pmThere's a 2002 peer-reviewed study by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder which found that a small percentage of participants successfully changed their homosexual orientation to heterosexual (I watch Dateline, so I agree it is difficult for some to achieve such a sustained change in their sexual behaviour). I will try to find a link to the study for anyone NOT on the "Ignore List".
June 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmIf only there were a cure for STUPIDITY. I'd inject George Bush personally.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmJake sez:
John Paulk? You mean this John Paulk?
Honestly, Shakey...you really do make it too easy...
June 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmThanks for your input, Eric.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmHey Jake,
I thought John Paulk (in fact pretty sure) was caught trolling in gay bars after his "cure". Wayne Besen's blog would probably have the facts.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pmJames Holsinger is a good man and a good doctor, with 30 years of service in the US army reserve.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pmAre you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
Ted Haggard was cured.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:56 pmHe could spend the next year and a half converting all the closet cases in the White House...starting in the Oval Office.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmTed Faggard was cured? LOL!!
You Repukes will believe anything you're told, you morons.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmAre you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
Comment by Jake
YES
June 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmeric
what is wrong with it is the person you speak of is still gay they are just living a dishonest life and repressing their normal sexual responses in favor of marriage, that doesn't mean he is no longer gay, it just means pressure in society from morons who think you can "cure" homosexuality like you would a disease do all they can to make their lives miserable.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pmHomosexuals are BORN that way. You can't be influenced or tricked or catch it.
All mammals have a percentage of their population that is homosexual, not just humans.
GOD PLANNED IT THAT WAY
This nomination is dead before it starts.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pmNo way the senate will approve this whacko.
I personally know a gay person who turned back to a heterosexual marriage. What’s so wrong about that? It’s because the gay community goes ape when you attack their base premise: It’s genetic.
If it is, that solves a lot of problems. We could screen babies for it, then abort them.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pm#12
Amen to that.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:58 pmAt least he did not have to have a sex change.
He had that right tool to begin with.
Then he wasn't gay. He was a bi-sexual who leaned toward the ding ding. Now he is leaning towards the hoo hoo. But, he is still bi-sexual and hasn't been turned or cured of anything.
Gays are gays and will always be gay. You can't "cure" being gay.
Just like you can't cure your stupidity. It is bred into you, just like gays being gay.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pmYou can't "cure" being gay.
Those guys who got cured were bisexual and they just stopped having gay sex. But they're still bisexual.
Sex drive is innate. You don't choose it. It chooses you.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm"Ted Haggard was cured."
-yes, after multiple beef injections
June 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pmThanks for the link, TripMaster. "John told the board that he had 'no sinful intentions' in entering that bar. . . . but admitted he knew it was a gay bar." Funny! I used to live in Dupont Circle. My gay friends in DC told me very clearly that one goes into the gay bars in Dupont for only one reason - and it wasn't for the buffalo wings.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pmHere is Gay day a TP! June 1st mark your calendars.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmDisney is this month too.
Eric,
As usual you are putting words in our mouths. No one has suggested that someone should not be allowed to convert from gay to straight. In my opinion, which I'm sure most people here would share, is that people should be perfectly free to switch from gay to straight and back again as often as they wish. It's a personal decision!!
What this guy and Jake and similarly-minded people are suggesting is that there is something wrong with being gay and that one needs to be 'cured' of this. They are NOT about helping people find the identity they're most comfortable with. They are against people being gay period because they feel that God has said this is not ok.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmFunny how Repukes are vehemently against abortion...to the point of banning research on stem cell embryos the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
But when the possibility of gay genes is discussed, then all of a sudden the Repukes think abortion is a good idea...if you're aborting gays.
There was another guy who believed in that kind of crap.
His name was Hitler.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmm12
too bad we can't screen them for stupidity, you'd never have made the cut
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmAnd let's not forget the report that just came out that showed that homosexuality is found in 1500 different animals in the world. It isn't as "unnatural" as our unnatural trolls would have you think.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmThis doofus shouldn't even qualify for Surgeon Lieutenant .
June 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pmIF HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DISEASE, CAN i CALL IN "GAY" TO WORK?
"Yeah, sorry, I'd love to come in today sir, but I simply MUST do something about these drapes...What's that sir? Oh, yes, I have a touch of the Gay today. Thank you,sir. I'll see you tomorrow, if my closets(what a mess!) don't cause my Gay to flame up again..."
June 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pmm12, it's great to see your respect for the Culture of Life
June 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pmJohn and Anne Paulk, for instance.
Comment by Jake
Jake, what is your obsession with homosexuals lately. Are you in their bedroom? Let me know when you've seen the two of them engaging in intercourse.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pmI wonder when Ted Haggert realized he was gay? Or was he somehow "infected" by this "disease?" Maybe he got it from someone's tears -- like "Doctor" Frist says AIDS can be transmitted.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pmGreat. I thought Doctors took the following oath:
"I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!"
June 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pmYou Repukes will believe anything you’re told, you morons.
And you refuse to believe a man's own judgement on his own desires. I think he knows better than you do.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pmI agree gov'nor, this cat doesn't seem to be given to prejudice, he seems to be able to deliver it in healthy doses completely unassisted.
Next headline: "(new) Surgeon General warns that organic foods will make you prone to 'gayness' and that smoking will lead you to god sooner than if you don't smoke."
And the beat goes on...
June 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pmThey need to read the report from post 36 that shows 1500 animal types have homosexual sex. What does God have to say about making his animals gay too.
What say you God? Why did you make gay animals, but want humans to be straight?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm"Are you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
Comment by Jake"
Wow. The ignorance in this question is stifling.
1) "Cures" are for diseases; homosexuality is not a disease.
2) I can only assume that what you actually mean by this question is: 'Are you saying there have been ZERO instances of homosexuals becoming heterosexual?' And that answer would be "Yes".
You can crawl back under your rock now.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pmThere's a name for people who switch from gay to straight or vice versa.
They're called bisexuals.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pmHere's a clearer analogy:
George Bush is an idiot. He proves it every time he opens his mouth.
If Bush were to stop talking, he won't be "cured" of his idiocy. He'll still be an idiot.
Any questions?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmWhere is Wilco (sexual terrorist) the AIDS spreader? alias Deadly Dick
He should be charge with murder (sexual terrorist).
Call the CDC!!!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmJustice:
Showing your ignorance. There are bisexual people and many heterosexuals that tried it and didn't like it. So anyone who experimented was really born that way and are denying their true self?
Your fallacious argument just made my point. Thank you.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmm12, it’s great to see your respect for the Culture of Life
This is the result of the pro-abortion movement. Get used to it.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmm12, you're putting words in my mouth, you fascist jerk.
I never said people couldn't change their sex partners.
I just said they're bisexual when they do.
You cannot cure gayness. It is innate.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pmTed Haggard like Mark Foley is bi-sexual. Only Foley like them real young.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pmDiversity doesn’t include former gay people. They are just “fighting†their true self. What hogwash.
Comment by Eric
Homoswexuals should feel free to adopt any lifestyle they choose. Gay or straight. As long as nobody else is hurt.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pmFunny how Repukes are vehemently against abortion…to the point of banning research on stem cell embryos the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
That's a complete lie. Nobody banned stem cell research.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pmDisney is this month too. -- Comment by Flaco
genius.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pmEric is making a fellatio argument
June 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pmBush bats a 1000 when it comes to sending the absolutely the wrong man to do the job irrespective of the job.
It's like living in a bizzaro world. I'll never get it.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pmbi-sexuals like it, that is why they are called bisexual. If a heterosexual tries it and does like it, that makes them bi-curious, not gay.
Gay is gay dumb a$$.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pmAre you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
Ted Haggard was cured.
Comment by m12
Only a Republican would believe in homosexual rehab.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pmFlaco, what are you talking about?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pmAre you really this massive a tool?
Did your parents beat you as a child? Is that what happened to you?
Vinnie:
You take your statement you said in your first paragraph and run it by the gay community and see the reaction. In this rare instance, we actually agree. You will see that most people don't agree with you and me but deny that ANYONE can return to heterosexuality. It's baffling and I've had more than one conversation with friends about it. Most gays bellive like Justice on #24. They totally deny that someone can return. Take the morality aspect out of it completely.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pmTed Haggard was cured. - -
June 1st, 2007 at 4:11 pmPay attention: OUTED does not equal CURED. Headslap.
Shidlo and Schroeder - here's what the Rainbow Alliance says about it:
http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
"The second APA paper, presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change. "
When I got to the bit where the 'therapists' were wokring their mumbo-jumbo 'through the Power-ah of Jesus-ah Christ-ah!' I knew we were not talking about science.
P*ss off with your junk science, Joke. Your a lying sack of sh*te. m12 - would you send your son to camp with Ted Haggard?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm#24
Interesting that someone blames homosexuality on God!
I’ve always been curious as to why no one tries to blame homosexual behavior on evolution. Seems to me that claiming nature is trying to evolve a new, separate gender would make a lot of sense. After all, isn’t claiming that it’s cause by genetics borderline referring to natural selection and random mutation.
But, of course, this doesn’t make sense at all, because nature’s prime thrust (double entredre intended) is to replicate those genes.
After all, it’s about behavior isn’t it?
The Creator didn’t design people to be homosexuals.
BTW, why don’t you blame homosexuality on the EvilOne.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmAccording to Masters and Johnson, nobody is 100% straight or 100% gay.
We're ALL bisexual.
Time for a pitcher of margaritas!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmWilco what STDs do you share with others?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmThis is the result of the pro-abortion movement. Get used to it.
Comment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
The pro-abortion movement is to blame for you wanting to abort all gay children?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmIf there wasn't a pro-abortion movement, you'd love to have a gay child, then?
Your logic is staggering.
And what happened to the party of personal responsibility? Playing the victim card like this and all. Pretty weak.
You know this guy is a closet homosexual! I'll bet he could suck start a Harley! He just doesn't want anyone to know he likes the cock.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmHere is Gay day a TP! June 1st mark your calendars.
Disney is this month too.
Comment by Flaco
Is that why YOU'RE here? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmSo what's the term for bi-sexuals that no longer practice bi-sexuality?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmAh, that bizarre phenomena where people actually choose what they want to do and how they want to do it. Let's see, what's that called again? Oh, that's right, "Freedom".
We cannot be having that now. It's so unpatriotic.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pmHere's the PEER-REVIEWED study by Shidlo and Schroeder, who reported findings from their study where six (6, not ZERO) homosexuals achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift: http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=KV6LLTT278058M1PXQ9EBPGEDM1F8TRE&ID=13992
June 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pmI sure miss Daryll's enlightened pronouncements on this thread.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pmAre you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?
Ted Haggard was cured.
Comment by m12
Only a Republican would believe in homosexual rehab.
Comment by shane
And only a real dum bass would believe in "homosexual rehab" that took two weeks.
But Ted is "cured" because he says so. Just like Tom DeLay has an intimate relationship with Jesus because . . . he says so. That makes it a fact.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:15 pmFlaco, seriously, you're in high school, aren't you?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pmAnd you refuse to believe a man’s own judgement on his own desires. I think he knows better than you do.
Comment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Uh, most of the gay 'curing' that is done is to get people to deny their gay desires. When they are turned on by another man they are told that is bad (i.e. given electric shock). If they were neutral you'd imagine they'd end up telling some people that they should convert from straight to gay. Strange how they never do that.
I disagree with the idea that it's purely genetic. I think there is some free choice in it. Unlike the fundamentalists, I think people should be happy with whatever choice they make. Sexuality is a very complex topic. To say that someone is just dumped into a 'gay' category because of their genes oversimplifies things.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pmWilco U homo right?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pmAny doctor who truly believes that homosexuality can be cured is medically ignorant and certainly should not be SG.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm#64-VOLDEMORT?????
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmTed Faggart also said he was cured in three weeks of his methamphetamine habit.
No freakin' way. He would need at least a month in rehab. Inpatient rehab. Not "christian counseling". Rehab done by professionals.
Teddy Boy is lying and Repukes are gullible morons to believe him.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmReading some of the comments above, I noted that I already agreed it was a SMALL percentage of participants who successfully changed their homosexual orientation to heterosexual. It was more than ZERO however. As I said, I also watch "To Catch a Predator" on Dateline NBC, so I agreed it is certainly difficult for some to achieve such a sustained change in their sexual behaviour. As for John and Anne Paulk, regardless of whether John relapsed, they are still married and as far as I know, Anne has sustained her change in homosexual orientation. Again, all I had to prove was that it's been done at least once.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmJake,
I'm sure you could find many people who would describe a straight to gay shift. Like the senator from California named Huffington (Arianna's ex-husband). What does that prove? The point, as I said before, is that these people are FORCING people into what they believe is right. They are not HELPING them discover what they truly want.
BTW, I believe there are counselers that help people feel comfortable with whatever sexuality they decide upon. It sounds like you need to see one of these to get over your denial.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmThere are bisexual people and many heterosexuals that tried it and didn’t like it. So anyone who experimented was really born that way and are denying their true self?
Your fallacious argument just made my point. Thank you.
Comment by Eric
If they tried it and didn't like it they are not homosexuals or bisexuals they are heterosexuals. What part of that is confusing?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmSex drive is innate. You don’t choose it. It chooses you.
Comment by Tom3
AIDS chooses U too.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pmFlaco, you're an idiot.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pmhomosexual rehab LOL
fits right in with their dumbthink way of looking at things
humans walked with dinosaurs, the earth is 6,000 years old, global warming is a myth, you can "win" the "war on terrah"
yup, fits.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm"And you refuse to believe a man’s own judgement on his own desires. I think he knows better than you do.
Comment by m12"
Actually, I prefer to believe the evidence over what the man's own judgement is.
I.e.,
You claim the lord cured you of your homosexuality, but you were caught cruising a gay bar? I believe you were *not* there for the beer and pretzels, but rather the opportunity to meet sexually available men. I.e., you're gay.
You are the leader of a national evangelical organization and provide weekly advice to the president, but you were buying drugs from and using them with a gay male escort? I believe you have a drug problem *and* you're *very* gay.
It's funny how a person's subjective opinion about themselves is often different from the objective opinion held by the rest of the world.
That's why I don't give a rat's ass how he un-gay he thinks he is; if he's smoking cock, he's gay.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pmThis guy has zero credibility in the medical/scientific community and it's clearly a further attempt by this christofascist white house to blur the line separating church and state.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pmThe pro-abortion movement is to blame for you wanting to abort all gay children?
If there wasn’t a pro-abortion movement, you’d love to have a gay child, then?
No, the pro-abortion movement provided a convenient solution to the problem.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pmJust like Tom DeLay has an intimate relationship with Jesus because . . . he says so. That makes it a fact.
Comment by gummitch
Didn't you know, Jesus is the Answer, for shorter prison sentences that is. Even Paris Hilton carried a bible into court. What a joke.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pmThe repukes banned federal funds for stem cell research. Which pretty much stopped it. That's not a lie.
You Repukes know all about lying. Your beloved Chimp does it every single time he opens his mouth.
And you're stupid enough to still believe him.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm"Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
NO. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder." - American Psychiatric Association
http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm
Never was being Jewish, or black, or a Slav, or a pikey.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pmIf God wanted everyone to reproduce, why did he create some people sterile?
It takes straight people to make gay people!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pmTrust me, I've never been heterophobic!
I'm pleased that straight people are making more gay people!
Impeach Bush.
He can do so much damage in 1.5 years. He can't be reelected so he is just going to trash the country like the irresponsible-frat-boy-cheerleader that he is.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pmNah, not prejudiced bone in his body, but then someone who agrees with you would tend to take a pass on that, eh?
Actually, I would think that given the Bush Maladministration's record, they have picked someone is not only a bigot but probably unqualified and/or incompetent.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pmCelibate.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm"Didn’t you know, Jesus is the Answer, " - yes Shane, but you need to frame the answer in the form of a question. Thanks for playing :)
June 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmOOPS
So what’s the term for bi-sexuals that no longer practice bi-sexuality?
Comment by Eric
CELIBATE
June 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pmVinnie
Yes, a genetic component is still being debated.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
June 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmDemocrats should confirm this nominee quickly. Otherwise, they risk looking partisan, or anti-science.
I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm concerned about how this will affect them with the voters, that's all.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmYou claim the lord cured you of your homosexuality, but you were caught cruising a gay bar? I believe you were *not* there for the beer and pretzels, but rather the opportunity to meet sexually available men. I.e., you’re gay.
You are the leader of a national evangelical organization and provide weekly advice to the president, but you were buying drugs from and using them with a gay male escort? I believe you have a drug problem *and* you’re *very* gay.
All that proves is that he *was* gay. He has stopped doing those things.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pmWhat's the big deal? It's not like this asshat is gonna be the head of FEMA or the head of NASA or something.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pmFlaco, seriously, you’re in high school, aren’t you?
Comment by Wilco
Wilco, I think Flaco is jealous because you have a sex life. And he couldn't get laid in a whore house with a fist full of $100s.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm#64-VOLDEMORT?????
Comment by whiteyfresh
Careful with he who shall not be named ...
June 1st, 2007 at 4:35 pmThe repukes banned federal funds for stem cell research. Which pretty much stopped it. That’s not a lie.
No, it isn't, but it's a far cry from the lie you spouted earlier.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmSo what’s the term for bi-sexuals that no longer practice bi-sexuality?
Comment by Eric
CELIBATE
Comment by shane
NO!!! it's called monogamous.
Wow everyone in here seems off base. Just because someone tells you that they are 'cured' doesn't mean they are. You can't cure something that has no cure. It has no cure because it is not a disease.
Bisexuals who are now with one person are the same as heterosexuals who are now with one partner. It doesn't meant they are no longer attracted to other people.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmI don't hate homos either, I just hate the idea that it's considered normal.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmm12,
"All that proves is that he *was* gay. He has stopped doing those things."
No it doesn't prove that he no longer gay. He still may prefer men to women, but now the zealots in this country have had there way with him, they have scared him back into the closet.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pmFlaco, your compassion knows no bounds.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmWilco,
June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmU homosexaul right?
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette wrote the original news story on this topic. It -- and several other stories on this topic -- are posted at http://www.biblebeltblogger.com
June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmAll that proves is that he *was* gay. He has stopped doing those things.
Comment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
For some reason this makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where George gets a hairpiece and then says, "I was bald".
Maybe it makes me think of it because once Elaine ripped his toup off his head and tossed it out the window, everyone could see that he was STILL bald. Just like once a "cured ex-gay" get caught in a gay bar, everyone can see that he's STILL GAY.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pmWilco this guy can help you change.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pmYou should call now.
Ted Faggart also said he was cured in three weeks of his methamphetamine habit.
No freakin’ way. He would need at least a month in rehab. Inpatient rehab. Not “christian counselingâ€. Rehab done by professionals.
Teddy Boy is lying and Repukes are gullible morons to believe him.
Comment by Tom3
Methamphetamine users have the highest recidivism rate of any druggies. Look at VV, she can't quit, obviously. And you can bet Ted doesn't want to quit either habit.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pmThis subject really scares people straight.
What worry is it of anyone else's what's done between consenting adults?
The Romans wanted homosexuals in their military. Their empire lasted longer than ours so far.
It's all relative morality
June 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pmI hate Repukes.
And I hate the idea that they consider themselves normal.
Torture and treason are not normal.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pmVery true Vinnie. I have desires to be a philanderer at times but I've been able to overcome those desires. Am I fighting my true-self or am I just controlling my desires? If you use the gay community logic, it's genetic and any resistance is futile. I also personally know heterosexual men that are as gay as Richard Simmons, they are just celibate to that lifestyle. I know if they were to be bi-curious, they would never return. Complicated is the right word.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pmAgain, all I had to prove was that it’s been done at least once.
Comment by Jake
But Jake this thread isn't about you. It's about the Surgeon General. 3% of the study "said" they changed. This nominee wants to change them all. And the people who did the study said it was detrimental to the participants.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pmFlaco, your mother must be so proud of her little boy. Such a gentleman, such a kind young man.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pmJesus loves you even if no one else does.
No it doesn’t prove that he no longer gay. He still may prefer men to women, but now the zealots in this country have had there way with him, they have scared him back into the closet.
Or *drumroll*, he may prefer women to men!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pmJust as bad, this guy has a horrible history in veterans affairs as well. He served under Bush Sr. The follwing is from an article I read.
"As Chief Medical Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs under Bush's father, Dr. Holsinger was neglecting our vets long before Walter Reed made it fashionable. A government investigation found "several cases in which incompetence and neglect led to the deaths of patients." Dr. Holsinger was forced to admit blame for the deaths of six patients in less than a year at a single Chicago hospital alone.
But the problems weren't limited to Chicago. In a Wyoming, a patient scheduled for surgery for a treatable cancer died after he was ignored for 45 days following the resignation of the staff urologist over a contract dispute. Thirty VA hospitals were found to have "high numbers of patient complications and other indicators of substandard care."
A decade later, Dr. Holsinger was appointed Kentucky's Cabinet Secretary for Health and Family Services. By the end of his tenure, a Kentucky newspaper found that the state was at the bottom of the nation for almost every health measure." http://www.buzzflash.com
June 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmMaybe it makes me think of it because once Elaine ripped his toup off his head and tossed it out the window, everyone could see that he was STILL bald. Just like once a “cured ex-gay†get caught in a gay bar, everyone can see that he’s STILL GAY.
Kindly tell me. Let us, hypothetically, assert that it is possible for Ted Haggard to be cured.
How, hypothetically, could he prove it to you?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmSo what’s the term for bi-sexuals that no longer practice bi-sexuality?
Comment by Eric
Bisexuals who are now with one person are the same as heterosexuals who are now with one partner. It doesn’t meant they are no longer attracted to other people.
Comment by Crump's Brother
Not to split hairs but if they are bisexuals they can have sex with either a male or female and still be bisexual. If they no longer practice bi-sexuality, as the idiot suggests, then perhaps they could be celibate. But they are still bisexuals.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmI have a jar of Santorum.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pmNo it doesn’t prove that he no longer gay. He still may prefer men to women, but now the zealots in this country have had there way with him, they have scared him back into the closet.
Or *drumroll*, he may prefer women to men!
Comment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Or *drumroll* pigs might fly out of his butt!!!! (What? I said "might".)
June 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pmAIDS chooses U too.
Comment by Flaco
The highest incidence of new cases of aids is from married women getting it from their husbands. Especially in countries where there is no birth control or abortion and so they use alternative methods of avoiding pregnancy.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pmNo, the pro-abortion movement provided a convenient solution to the problem.
Comment by m12
You will never get laid, no need to worry about children or abortion.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pmThis occured in 1973. Before that they were all unanimous that it was indeed a mental disorder.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmA decade later, Dr. Holsinger was appointed Kentucky’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Family Services. By the end of his tenure, a Kentucky newspaper found that the state was at the bottom of the nation for almost every health measure.
Heck of a job doc.
The bottom line is the only reason Bush wants him as Surgeon General is because of his views on homosexuality. The doctors previous record means nothing. He could have been an equestrian doctor for all Bush cares.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmDidn’t you know, Jesus is the Answer, †- yes Shane, but you need to frame the answer in the form of a question. Thanks for playing :)
Comment by Alex Trebek
Hi Alex, I used to have such a crush on you.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pmKindly tell me. Let us, hypothetically, assert that it is possible for Ted Haggard to be cured.
How, hypothetically, could he prove it to you?
Comment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Wow. A real hypothetical question. Who wrote it for you?
Given that he has established a reputation for lying to himself, his loved ones and his congregation, I don't know if there's a way he could "prove" it to me. See, that's the thing about "trust". Once it's damaged, it can never fully recover.
And, since I don't believe that one can change one's sexual orientation, nor do I think homosexuality is anything to be "cured", I have to say that he could not "prove" to me that he's "cured".
But it's actually none of my business whether he thinks he's cured or not. It's a matter for him and his family and the people with whom he works. The sad thing is that those people are gay-bashers.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pmThis occured in 1973. Before that they were all unanimous that it was indeed a mental disorder.
Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Which proves that with more knowledge, understanding changes views. Something that escapes the religious crowd.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pmWho is 'still hot and whose tush is better than you see on TV', Shane?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm#128 - "This occured in 1973. Before that they were all unanimous that it was indeed a mental disorder." Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
They also considered being attracted to opposite races to be a mental disorder at one time.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:00 pmCleanse away in Jesus Name Dr. Holsinger.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:01 pmI hate Repukes.
And I hate the idea that they consider themselves normal.
Torture and treason are not normal.
Comment by Tom3
Honestly, I'd prefer my child grow up gay than Republican.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm“Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
NO. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.†- American Psychiatric Association
This occured in 1973. Before that they were all unanimous that it was indeed a mental disorder.
Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Your point?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmI personally know a gay person who turned back to a heterosexual marriage. What’s so wrong about that? It’s because the gay community goes ape when you attack their base premise: It’s genetic. They shut down anyone who talks about giving up the lifestyle as if you can never turn back. This is one of the most hypocritical components of the gay community. Everyone should be free to follow their desires except for those that were gay. There is no going back - period. Diversity doesn’t include former gay people. They are just “fighting†their true self. What hogwash.
Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Eric, no suprise. Satan influences these individuals.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmEric: yes, and since then.... no change... it took the United States until 1965 to decide that a black person was more than 3/5 of a person.... since then... no change. Keep seeking an excuse for your bigotry Eric, you won't find one.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmThis occured in 1973. Before that they were all unanimous that it was indeed a mental disorder.
Comment by Eric
It is NOT a mental disorder. It is just the way some people are born. Like blondes, or green eyes, or lower than average IQs like your's but still normal.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pmYikes. I was simply stating a fact - why the judgement passing?
So if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, you must stay consistent and say that with knowledge, understanding changes views. I won't hold my breath.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pmThanks for the link, TripMaster. “John told the board that he had ‘no sinful intentions’ in entering that bar. . . . but admitted he knew it was a gay bar.†Funny! I used to live in Dupont Circle. My gay friends in DC told me very clearly that one goes into the gay bars in Dupont for only one reason - and it wasn’t for the buffalo wings.
Comment by Oversight is a Bitch. — June 1, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Don't worry, I know where the bar is located. We're looking for an ordinance to shut it down. We were successfully in closing polyesters.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmDarryl, do you own your wife?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmHe could have been an equestrian doctor for all Bush cares.
Comment by Yikes
Heckuva job, Brownie!
June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmTed Faggard was cured? LOL!!
You Repukes will believe anything you’re told, you morons.
Comment by Tom3 — June 1, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Please refrain from mocking God's child. It's dangerous.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pmSatan influences these individuals.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Sure took Daryll a while to get here, huh? I guess he was still poring over that list of biblical laws that someone provided for him yesterday, trying to decide if stoning was required for someone who ate shellfish or not.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:08 pm"Satan influences these individuals.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:05 pm"
Prove Satan exists, St Daryll. Took your time getting to the gay thread Daryll - self flaggelation take a bit longer than usual today?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:08 pmWho is ’still hot and whose tush is better than you see on TV’, Shane?
Comment by Alex Trebek
Definitely, I'm just too old for crushes anymore.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pmDiversity doesn’t include former gay people. They are just “fighting†their true self. What hogwash.
Comment by Eric
Homoswexuals should feel free to adopt any lifestyle they choose. Gay or straight. As long as nobody else is hurt.
Comment by shane — June 1, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Jesus is hurt, especially since he shed his blood on the cross for these sinners.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pmDon’t worry, I know where the bar is located.
Comment by Daryll
Yes Daryll, we're sure you do.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pmAlex - throwing bigotry name calling out? Where did that come from? Because I don't agree that some people can change their sexual orientation, I'm now a bigot? Classic ad hominen. You can't handle someone with a differing viewpoint.
If I follow your illogic, you're trying to tie slavery into the argument? That is a classic straw-man. Nice try. Stick to the topic and avoid your sweeping generalizations.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pmSomebody brought up evolution and it reminded me of the latest weak-as-hell religious rationalization for the physical evidence of there having been life on this planet hundreds of millions of years ago: "God put those fossils there to test our faith". When all else fails for the faithful (except for logic, which is never even attempted), they resort to the old 'God works in strange and mysterious ways'. That's another way of saying "I haven't a clue."
So, I figure that I can speculate about God's motives as well as the next guy. Since I don't believe in God, the speculation could get pretty wild. But, if you want a reason for hypothetical God putting homosexuals in our midst, try this on for size: He wanted to see who could maintain a Christ-like demeanor and continue to practice so-called Christian charity when faced with an inexplicable phenomenon that turns all traditional notions of gender and sexual relations on their head. Who will become fearful? Who will become enraged? Who will attempt to understand? Who will show compassion for the objects of that fear and rage?
Who passed his test and who failed?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pmDarryl, do you own your wife?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — June 1, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
No, we're equal partners, but God holds me responsible for the decisions within our family.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pmJesus is hurt, especially since he shed his blood on the cross for these sinners.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Also, I'm going to stomp on a kitten everytime I see a gay person.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pmSo if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, you must stay consistent and say that with knowledge, understanding changes views. I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Wow. Talk about tortured logic. Oops -- I meant "enhanced interrogation" pseudo-logic.
Equating a court decision with scientific consensus... yeah, i could see where that would be convincing enough for a wingnut.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pmJesus is hurt, especially since he shed his blood on the cross for these sinners.
Comment by Daryll
Hey Daryll have I told you where to stick that cross? Oh and then let me know if your shit really doesn't stink, cay.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pmOne difficulty with any study of homosexuality is distinguishing between homosexual identity and homosexual behavior, which are not synonymous. The "successes" of conversion therapy are likely to be due to the person changing his or her behavior, that is being sexual with only people of the opposite gender or not sexually active at all. The person may have an underlying heterosexual identity, though confused or too emotionally disturbed to express it and instead engaged in homosexual acts. Or the person may have an underlying homosexual identity which he or she represses behaviorally. Sound science has demonstrated that homosexual identity does not change, even though the sexual behavior might. For those who "believe" in conversion therapy, I would ask: "could therapy of any kind change you from a heterosexual to a homosexual?".
June 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pmDon’t worry, I know where the bar is located. We’re looking for an ordinance to shut it down. We were successfully in closing polyesters.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
*The* bar? Have you been to Dupont Circle recently? You'd have trouble walking into a bar that wasn't mostly gay.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmYikes. I was simply stating a fact - why the judgement passing?
So if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, you must stay consistent and say that with knowledge, understanding changes views. I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by Eric — June 1, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
WTF?
Are you dense?
In 1973 they determined that homosexuality is not a mental disease as a result of studying the subject. You, for some unknown reason, say that before 1973 homosexuality was a mental disease. Big deal. Before Copernicus and Galileo, and for some time after, the Earth was thought to be stationary. It was with new knowledge that understanding of reality changed the view. Bringing up Roe vs Wade is more deflection on your part.
The list of knowledge that has changed understanding is bloody endless and the fact that homosexuality is not a mental disease is but one of them.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmMongo said, "t’s funny how a person’s subjective opinion about themselves is often different from the objective opinion held by the rest of the world."
This is a fulcrum point of the argument that I see people of faith make all the time (not you Mongo, you're post just instigated my thought). The fallacy that opinion is evidence. When did people stop using Critical Thinking? You know, that mental skill created by Socrates that stipulates that arguments must be analyzed based upon evidence, not opinion.
And secondly, all these people saying others can be "cured" of being gay is ridiculous as their core assumptions and beliefs on the subject are fallacious. Being gay is a social identity that some people take upon themselves due to society making such a big deal about who people have sex with. If society didn't differentiate or discriminate against people who have sex with those of their same sex, there would be no gay identity (as the societal need for that identity wouldn't be there).
Behavior and attraction are distinct from identity. And while people may control their behavior (ie homosexual or heterosexual behavior), changing sexual desire is something that we know little to nothing about.
The problem with people wanting others to be "cured" of being gay is that it continues the destructive social mores surrounding sexuality. Ted Haggard is a victim of this damaging social more and he internalized this hatred so much that he became the abuser, disassociated himself from his desires, and used drugs to alleviate the emotions tied to his self hatred. (For those of you who don't know: one of the effects of Meth is an increase in self confidence and a decrease in inhibitions - with a corresponding swing in the other direction when the drug effect end).
June 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmGod holds me responsible for the decisions within our family.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Apparently He also holds you responsible for the sex lives of sinners, too. Wow. That's a lot on your shoulders, Daryll.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmLibs, never say never. Our Men's organization converted 11 people back into the homosexual lifestyle during are retreat, which occured in April. Two of the individuals from the group are currently engaged, and another has reconciled with his wife.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pmDarryll: "Darryl, do you own your wife?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — June 1, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
No, we’re equal partners, but God holds me responsible for the decisions within our family.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:12 pm"
That's not what you said here on the 30th about DrXJs wife:
“She belongs to her ex-husband.â€
So which is today? Are you lying today or were you lying on Wednesday?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pmDid Jesus ever talk specifically about homosexual? Back on topic, this guy won't pass congress.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pm*The* bar? Have you been to Dupont Circle recently? You’d have trouble walking into a bar that wasn’t mostly gay.
Comment by erock — June 1, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
No, I don't go to clubs because it's sinful. I've heard that the Georgetown and Adams Morgan area is heavily populated with homosexuals. God, help them!
June 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pmchimpeach
My sentiments EXACTLY: "whatever you do to these the least of my brethern you do unto me".
June 1st, 2007 at 5:21 pmI think Daryll does this for fun and gets his kicks trying to say the most insane things to inflame his "audience." Typical Troll behavior that deems he should be ignored, not fed.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pmNo, I don’t go to clubs because it’s sinful. I’ve heard that the Georgetown and Adams Morgan area is heavily populated with homosexuals. God, help them!
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Least surprising response ever.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pmLibs, never say never. Our Men’s organization converted 11 people back into the homosexual lifestyle during are retreat, which occured in April. Two of the individuals from the group are currently engaged, and another has reconciled with his wife.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
That only proves that brainwashing is alive and well in your religion.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pmOur Men’s organization converted 11 people back into the homosexual lifestyle during are retreat, which occured in April.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
I'll bet that was a struggle. What did you do to covert them back into the homosexual lifestyle? Say "okay, boys, go at it"?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pmI think Daryll does this for fun and gets his kicks trying to say the most insane things to inflame his “audience.†Typical Troll behavior that deems he should be ignored, not fed.
Comment by CpnJustice — June 1, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Do you believe hell is a fun place. This is not a game. The rapture is drawing nigh.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm161:
June 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pmThanks guys. These gentlemen must be happy that you converted them BACK into the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle. I assume they were gay and strayed. You've done the Lord's work by returning them to whom the were intended to be. I job well done. And to think that I misttok you for a homophobic crazed Christain lunatic. My apologies! Please let the engaged couple know we welcome them here in NH and I am glad that the other fellow was able to come to terms with his wife during the time of his wandering. I am sure it helps her to know that the difficulties they may have faced were not any reflection upon her.
Daryll
You can give all the anecdotal evidence you want but many of us can counter with our own. Conversion therapy has been scientifically studied and found to have NO success in truly converting a person with a homosexual identity to a heterosexual identity. Worse, there are serious negative consequences to many who try.
Coversion therapy MUST NOT be the basis of any public policy.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pmOur Men’s organization converted 11 people back into the homosexual lifestyle during are retreat, which occured in April.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
I’ll bet that was a struggle. What did you do to covert them back into the homosexual lifestyle? Say “okay, boys, go at it�
Comment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
I apologize. I meant the heterosexual lifestyle.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pmJesus is hurt, especially since he shed his blood on the cross for these sinners.
Comment by Daryll
You know what really hurts Jesus? It's when he has to listen to assclowns like you using his name to justify your idiotic prejudices. He is so sick of people throwing his name around, claiming that he wants them to hate this group of people or that one, that he wants them to start wars and go kill innocent people. He's really hurt by the lying, cheating, murdering little degenerate in the White House who goes around telling people that all his perversions are just an exercise of Jesus' will.
How do I know? He told me so. I asked him about you, Daryll. And he said you, especially, give him the shits. He said you're a pompous jerk who has no clue what his sermons were all about. He wants you to stop using his name.
Hey, I'm just telling you what he said.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pmEric: you cast the first 'ad hominem' at justice - "Justice: Showing your ignorance." - hyprocrite. If you can't take it don't dish it out.
The link to 1965 civil rights for all Americans is not a strawman. It is an analogy drawn between the treatment of blacks under the law because of their legislated inferiority and the current treatment of gays under the law. Because of some perceived flaw in their humanity, they are discriminated against.
Perhaps you are right, you haven't confirmed yet if you are a bigot... but if you subscribe to the opinion that homosexuality is a disease then do you also subscribe to these opinions about the fitness of 'diseased people' for the full rights that 'healthy people' are allowed. From the APA again:
"Does Stigma Still Exist About Homosexuality?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pmYes. Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are wide spread. They present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well. “Homophobia†is a term that refers to the irrational fear and prejudice against homosexual persons. Public opinion polls in the United States show that in the past twenty years, feelings toward gay men, lesbians and bisexuals have moved in a significantly positive direction. Nevertheless, when compared to other social groups homosexuals are still among the most stigmatized groups in the nation. Hate crimes are prevalent. Gay men and lesbians are still banned from serving openly in the US military service. Child custody decisions still frequently view gay and lesbian people as unfit parents. Gay and lesbian adolescents are often taunted and humiliated in their school settings. Many professional persons and employees in all occupations are still fearful of identifying as gay or lesbians in their work settings. Gay relationships are not widely recognized in any legal way."
Do you believe hell is a fun place. This is not a game. The rapture is drawing nigh.
Comment by Daryll — June 1, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Hell isn't a place Daryll, it's a metaphor for fear. If you are afraid then you believe in hell. For the brainwashed liked yourself, if you follow a book written 1900 years ago, then you are required to live in fear.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pmDaryll,
Mark 6:6-11
If any town refuses to accept you or refuses to listen to you, then leave that town. Shake their dust off your feet.
It's time for you to shake the dust off your feet as you leave TP. You won't convert us to your regressive fundamentalist religious belief system. God will absolve you of any responsibility for us because, God knows, you tried...and tried...and tried...and tried...and
June 1st, 2007 at 5:33 pm#161 Daryll
Libs, never say never. Our Men’s organization converted 11 people back into the homosexual lifestyle during are retreat, which occured in April. Two of the individuals from the group are currently engaged, and another has reconciled with his wife.
What do you suppose those guys think about while they're engaging in heterosexual sex acts with their significant others? That's assuming they have a sex life of any kind.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:36 pmHow do we know he is homophobic?
It seems like he just doesn't agree with the gay attitude.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:37 pmLet's look at another St Daryll contradiction - rape and ownership:
“There are two commandments that cover this issue. Thou shalt not fornicate, and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors things.†- St Darryl on the subject of raping other people’s wives.
So Darryl's neighbor gets into bother only for bonking outside of marriage and possessing his neighbor's things - i.e. his wife.
I guess that that means that since you posess your wife, as we have already established here from your May 30th, statements, then it is completely impossible for you to rape your own wife since your wife is yours, no fornication can possibly occur? What would Jesus say?
Here's what most Western legal systems say about it - St Darryl, you'd better be careful when you get the horn and she has a headache.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:38 pmTed Haggard redux.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:38 pmHey, I’m just telling you what he said.
Comment by chimpeach — June 1, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Hey chimpeach, how's it hangin'? Yeah that was about right, mind you the chimpster and I had tied one on by then and I was going off on how all these people claim to hear me in their heads to justify their actions. That really p*sses me off. That 'voices-in-the-head' stuff is so medieval, you know. Get with the times, dudes, JC posts to blogs now to get the message out.
Hey Darryl, sorry you didn't make the cut on the Rapture... better luck next time. How's the Trib going for you?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pmThe "freedom" to be happy (gay) is not supported in the USSA. The freedom to murder, rape, torture, and pillage? Well, that's applauded (except by the victims of course.)
I say let's quit dancing around this issue and demand that a law be passed that would make it legal to kill anyone that you truly hate. And let's not stop there, let's also make it legal to force changes on people who look or act in ways that you don't like. Makes perfect sense, really, think about it.
- Your neighbor is gay, you hate gays, so you kill them. Problem solved.
- Your business associate's hair is too long for your taste, you shave their head for them. Problem solved.
- One of your children's friends carries around a Quran, you cut their arm off. Problem solved.
- Your wife is fat, you kill her and find a younger prettier wife. Problem solved.
- Your husband is a philanderer and an idiot. Sorry about that one because that is a "freedom" that is beyond reproach. I would recommend you run away before your husband decides that you are fat.
I love the USSA! It smells like...oppression.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:43 pm"What would Jesus say?"
I'd have to say he's a rapist. Is it OK for me to recommend castration? Sometimes I can't quite stretch it to 'turn the other cheek' - not for that.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pmI love the USSA! It smells like…oppression.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Stop ripping of KMFDM, shithead
June 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pmInteresting to me that when the subject is homosexuality suddenly people see fit to get all up in other people's bidness.
I don't agree with the heterosexist christianist attitude either, but you don't see me trying to pass laws against their existence or "cure" them.
I'm sorry the existence of homosexuality offends certain people, but it is their own offendedness they have to live with. Just as I am offended by religious right wingnuts, I accept that I have to live with the fact they exist.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pmProgressives aren't really concerned about homophobes, because there was nothing but apathy when Schrum, his 2004 campaign manager made the accusation that he said he was uncomfortable around gays. Is that what he means by two americas; one straight and one gay?
http://redstatemobile.com/node/95349
June 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pmOh my Wilco, the trollies do love them some gay-themed threads!
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't think of anything but gay sex right now.
:-D
June 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pm"Are you saying there’s been ZERO cases of homosexuals being cured?"
(I find myself wondering who is the "you" in this question, but alas ... try to talk sense to someone like this poster).
Someone else pointed it out already, I guess: one can't be "cured" of something that isn't a "disease."
It would be like someone pointing at you, Jake, and saying "are you proffering Jake as evidence of ZERO cases of stupid people being cured?"
June 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pmI’m sorry the existence of homosexuality offends certain people, but it is their own offendedness they have to live with. Just as I am offended by religious right wingnuts, I accept that I have to live with the fact they exist.
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Oh, so then I take it that you see no problem with this dude getting the job. Because if you did, then you would be judging him for his hetero-Xtian attitude.
We're sorry if the hetero attitude offends you, but it is your own offendedness that you have to live with.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pmComment by Zooey — June 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Unclean thoughts,
You must repent!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:03 pm.
.
.
unless it's two chicks, then it's all good
#189,
You're a dork that is completely bereft of any intelligence. So I guess the title fits.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm#190,
Gannon/Guckert.
'nuff said.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pmWhen I see this piece of cr*p nominated for a position of responsibility in the medical community I am reminded why I vote Democratic. I expect my representatives to fight this guy tooth and nail.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pmYou’re a dork that is completely bereft of any intelligence. So I guess the title fits.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Think about, fcukface, and stop being a hypocrite.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:09 pmI expect my representatives to fight this guy tooth and nail.
Comment by candideinnc — June 1, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Too bad Dem reps only know how ta bend over and take it in the ass
June 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pmIronic. You look at all the threads above and below this one, and at best there's a smattering of posts by the homophobes that are: Jake/MAF54, m12, Flaco, et al. Because of that I can only assume that this particular topic is near and dear to their hearts.
Well, believe it or don't 'boys', but there isn't a cure - but keep your chin up, maybe someday you'll come to an understanding of yourself that will allow you some happiness. Maybe.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm#193,
You tell them girl! Just like the voters elected Democrats to end the Iraq Genocide Project and look at the progress there. So far, they've used their new-found muscle to both escalate the genocide and fund it at levels above what the administration was requesting. They put an end to the "blank check" approach and replaced it with a higher-limit credit card.
Look down you poor deprived lemming, you are about to follow your "leaders" right off a cliff.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pmOh, so then I take it that you see no problem with this dude getting the job. Because if you did, then you would be judging him for his hetero-Xtian attitude.
We’re sorry if the hetero attitude offends you, but it is your own offendedness that you have to live with.
Comment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Two points: one, objecting to this man's nomination because of his attitude toward gays and "curing" them is judging him, yes, but NOT based on his "hetero-xtian attitude". It's judging him on his fitness to serve as Surgeon General of teh United States when he ignores all of the prevailing scientific data regarding the source of homosexual orientation and the damage that attempted "cures" can have on "patients".
two, regarding your stupid attempted reversal of Andy's statement, the offense comes only on the active intrusion in other's lives. That's a pretty offensive act, wouldn't you say?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pmAnother like the wife abuser he put in charge of womens' health at the FDA. And how do we know - because his wife, who quietly divorced him after 20+ years of abuse heard him give a speech in which he spewed his pseudo science as fact and presented himself as a man wronged. So, she told the truth, publicy and he 'resigned for personal reasons.'
June 1st, 2007 at 6:19 pmOK, I'm a very stupid European but can someone explain to me why the whole gay rights thing is such a big issue in the US? To be fair, my logic is that if you are with a consenting adult then you should be able to do what you want.
Oh, and how does two men / women getting hitched undermine marriage? Surely divorce undermines it?
If anyone can help it would be much appreciated.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pmThis is a hot topic for logical reasons. But a reminder to all of us: debating the issue of gay marriage or even the right of homosexuals and lesbians to be "out" and happy isn't simply a Bush Administration or Christian problem. It's not even just an evangelical problem. The problem is with organized religion in general and with fundamentalists, extremists and orthodoxy in specific. And those people walk among us. They are our co-workers, our friends, our family, and our customers.
I've been reading this blog since its Hurricane Katrina timeline postings and issues like this one on the new Attorney General provide us with a great lesson on how to help: by educating those around us. This means a few things:
#1) educating ourselves and knowing the issues backwards & forwards. you can't represent with ignorance.
#2) going out into "the field" and interacting with folks who think differently than us.
#3) being calm enough to respond to ignorance, anger and fear with truth. you can't fight selfishness and marginal thinking with more selfish and marginal thinking, right?
I also think it means teaching our young people how to accept plurality of thought and to be open to hearing and understanding others' points of view. Most adults are closed off. Most children and young adults still have minds that are malleable.
Of course, this means we need to leave our comfort and safety zone and go out into the world of racism, homophobism, sexism, etc... and that's hard work for all of us.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pm#200,
Regional hate issue. Kind of like what you guys have going on with the Irish and the Scotts.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:24 pmIf anyone can help it would be much appreciated.
Comment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
You're quite right Dave, it is perplexing. You see, some in US are not as tolerant as others. They feel that if you do not think the same way as they do, then you do not belong in society. So, for instance, because this man is heterosexual and christian, and he does not go around saying "There is nothing wrong with being a gay" where ever he goes, because he does not live up to the gays' standards, they do not want him to have this job, even though he is the most qualified.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm#189
Actually I am not at all offended by a "hetero" attitude. I find that actual heterosexuals are charming people, and I would not want to change a thing about them.
However, I would like to subject people who think they must "cure" gays against their will to intrusive medical and psychological experiments and shock therapy. I would also like the world to know that they are sick and desperately need to be cured themselves, despite the fact that I have no idea what I am doing and might actually harm them in "curing them". It's a risk worth taking, in my opinion.
Surely, the above statement should not disqualify me for a job at the highest levels of the next Democratic administration. Wouldn't you agree?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pmtwo, regarding your stupid attempted reversal of Andy’s statement, the offense comes only on the active intrusion in other’s lives. That’s a pretty offensive act, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
I would like to answer you, but this doesn't really make since to me. Could you rephrase?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pmLife isn't fair, is it? Sadly enough, there are probably many more gays killed by straights, and not the other way around. And remember, this thread is actually about the discriminations against gays, no?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:32 pmI apologize. I meant the heterosexual lifestyle.
Comment by Daryll
We know how easy it is to get confused about these things, Daryll. That was more or less the point.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:33 pm#205,
I doubt anything complex will ever make "since" to you.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pm"However, I would like to subject people who think they must “cure†gays against their will to intrusive medical and psychological experiments and shock therapy."
Good, then you should have no problem here. Because this dude
“ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.â€
He is not forcing anybody against their will. Or do you think that they do not have the right to want to change their way of life?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pmComment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Yeah, the whole Protestant vs Catholic thing. It's all a bit boring isn't it? Thank God (however you worship him) that both sides worked out that discriminating and killing each other over it is pointless.
Go to an Old Firm (Glasgow Rangers Vs Celtic) football match mind. If you want to experience sectarianism it's like nothing else!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pm"I would also like the world to know that they are sick and desperately need to be cured themselves, despite the fact that I have no idea what I am doing and might actually harm them in “curing themâ€. It’s a risk worth taking, in my opinion."
Sure, sure, I see your point here. Your a homosexual fascist.
a homo-fascist
June 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pmSurely, the above statement should not disqualify me for a job at the highest levels of the next Democratic administration. Wouldn’t you agree?
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
The "Democratic"? With a capital "D"? Not at all, in fact, you've got the job. Wait, you're not white are you?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmsome in US are not as tolerant as others. They feel that if you do not think the same way as they do, then you do not belong in society. So, for instance, because this man is heterosexual and christian, and he does not go around saying “There is nothing wrong with being a gay†where ever he goes, because he does not live up to the gays’ standards, they do not want him to have this job, even though he is the most qualified.
Comment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
SPEC-TAC-ULAR attempt to twist and re-state the question so that it means something completely different than what was asked, there, Mr P.
Did anyone else catch the triple-axel of logic that Mr P tried to pull off? Unfortunately, he landed on the side of his skates and sprawled spread-eagled on the ice, but damn, you got to give him credit for the attempt.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmComment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Blimey, that is insane isn't it Mr. President! So, someone says that a fellow member of their society is "wrong" because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?!? It's a valid point. The over-riding concern of morality should be about what two consenting adults get up to. Darn tooting!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm#205,
I doubt anything complex will ever make “since†to you.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Well, would you like to explain the statement:
"two, regarding your stupid attempted reversal of Andy’s statement, the offense comes only on the active intrusion in other’s lives. That’s a pretty offensive act, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 6:15 pm"
I admit it is pretty complex.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pmBlimey, that is insane isn’t it Mr. President! So, someone says that a fellow member of their society is “wrong†because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?!?
Comment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
No, it's worse than that. People here want to regulate your thoughts. You can't even say that you believe in god, or are straight without some people immediately finding fault with your beliefs.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pm#210,
My point exactly. When the goal (no pun intended) is to hate and divide, the only variable is choosing who to hate.
Americans have chosen gays, blacks, hispanics, muslims, and blacks (we really hate blacks).
Brits have chosen to hate the Irish, Arabs, Scotts, and anyone with a decent dental plan.
Go figure.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pmIf what i wrote makes no sense to you, and judging by your recent responses on this thread, no I don't think i can rephrae so that it makes sense to you.
I will try, however.
The offensive attitude is NOT that people are hetero or Christian. The offensive attitude is the insistence that their own beliefs must guide the lives of homosexuals.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pmA quick look at the conservative trolls around here yields nams like “Captain Mantasticâ€, “Bottomboyâ€, “MAF54≤ etc.
I’ve asked this question before and trust me, I’m not a gay-basher at all, but why is the current conservative movement so gay? Considering the political record and stands our conservative leaders take these days, it just seems very strange.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pmComment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
My logic is rock solid, and my comment hits the heart of this problem. This is not about gay rights, it is about having the right to your own beliefs without fear of the thought police knocking at your door.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:44 pmThe offensive attitude is NOT that people are hetero or Christian. The offensive attitude is the insistence that their own beliefs must guide the lives of homosexuals.
Comment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
But in this case it is a heterosexual being judged based on his beliefs. He is not demonizing the gays, he has offerred counseling to those who wish to change their lives, so why do folks want to demonize him?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm#215: Let me diagram it out for you:
First, you made the claim, in a pseudo-clever reversal, "We’re sorry if the hetero attitude offends you, but it is your own offendedness that you have to live with."
My response was:
the offense
(the offensive act, the "offense")
comes
(occurs, happens, rears its ugly head)
only on
(at the point of)
the active intrusion in other’s lives.
(insistence that gays give up their identity and live the way "society" decides is "right)
That’s a pretty offensive act, wouldn’t you say?
I could spell this line out too, but I trust it's not TOO complex for you.
Any further questions? I'm here to help. But i suspect that this little time-wasting exercise already served your purpose.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm#209
“ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.â€
He is not forcing anybody against their will. Or do you think that they do not have the right to want to change their way of life?
---
Actually, that is not entirely true with most gay conversion organizations. They will often attempt to "convert" gay teenagers to heterosexuality against that person's will on behalf of their parents.
I have no idea whether that is true of this individual and his group.. it might be a question to ask in the confirmation hearings.
But, to answer your question directly, yes, I have a problem with it. There is no medical or psychological condition I know of that REQUIRES religious "healing" to be solved against the united medical and psychological professional community's advice. Must not be an real medical condition, I guess.
That would make this an instance of "malpractice". And malpractice is not usually a good qualification to be Surgeon General.
As to the individuals themselves, I agree, anyone has the right to "want" anything.
Listen, I don't mean any offense, but I honestly don't understand your attitude. We would probably both agree that if a religious sect came up with the theory that cutting off a person's left arm would make them spiritually and psychologically pure, and then set up clinics that cut off people's left arms, no one would accept this. Least of all, we wouldn't let people go get their left arms cut off just because some religion decided this was a good thing.
Now I'm sure that you feel that attempting to "cure" homosexuality is in no way akin to cutting off someone's left arm, and I would agree. Still, it is the position of the APA and the AMA that so-called "conversion therapy" is harmful. It is only a matter of degree.
If you think that gay people should be "cured", then go about persuading the medical and psychological communities of that. Until such a time as you do, however, this position is contrary to the long standing position of the medical community, and that fact is relevant to anyone seeking the position of "Surgeon General".
And, I find it interesting that you call me a "homo-fascist" because I facetiously put up a point that is very similar to yours on the other side.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pmWilco, my mother must be so proud of her little boy. Such a gentleman, such a kind young man.
Jesus loves me even if no one else does.
Comment by Wilco
Mom god made me a homosexual. Why?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pmgod is real smart he knows what he is doing. Two penises are better than one.
My logic is rock solid, and my comment hits the heart of this problem. This is not about gay rights, it is about having the right to your own beliefs without fear of the thought police knocking at your door.
Comment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Your "logic" is as rock-solid as those boulders that Captain Kirk used to toss at monsters on alien planets.
You whine about "the right to your own beliefs" in a thread about a man who insists that gays can be "cured" of being gay. You are absurd.
And you try to claim that this nominee's lack of fitness for the post of Surgeon General (as the president described him, "America’s chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available") is due to problems with his "beliefs".
It is not. It is about his ignorance of the best medical and psychological science on the natural incidence of homosexuality in humans, in favor of a religiously-backed fear-driven agenda.
I expect the Surgeon General of the United States to be a man of science first. This gentleman does not appear to be such.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pmComment by KRank — June 1, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Dude, didn't you already rephrase.
Your first statement made no sense, your second was better so I answered it, now shut your trap if you ain't got nothing left to say.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm"Actually, that is not entirely true with most gay conversion organizations."
Okay, well we are talking about THIS organization.
Next.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pmBut, to answer your question directly, yes, I have a problem with it. There is no medical or psychological condition I know of that REQUIRES religious “healing†to be solved against the united medical and psychological professional community’s advice.
So what. Those people WANT to change their lives. You are denying them that right.
Next.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pmHomosexuals represent 1 to 2% of the population.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pmThey use dildos for penetration and the men have serious medical issues of the rectum.
Not the norm at all!
"As to the individuals themselves, I agree, anyone has the right to “want†anything."
So you think that they should not be allowed to work toward their goals?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pmWilco
are u ???
HIV +
AIDS ???
Sexual terrorist ???
June 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pmComment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Once again, a valid point. People have mocked and discriminated against me because I believe that the Terry Pratchett books are true. How dare they use "science" to prove me wrong.
I'm also not allowed to dislike hump back midgets. My religion tells me it's immoral. Who are "they" to judge me?
Makes me sick
June 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm"As America's chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make SMART CHOICES that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and INJURY."
I seriously hope that this misinformed doctor is not confirmed. I'm gay, and I firmly believe that gays and lesbians do not choose their sexual orientation.
Many scientific studies have confirmed that our brains are not only different, but our bodies as well. For example, gay men generally have larger endowments across the board if straight men are statistically compared, on a bell curve, to gay men.
Obviously homosexuality is very complex and encompasses many dynamics besides simple same-sex attraction. One doesn't choose their same-sex attraction, just like one doesn't choose the size of their endowment, or their brain wiring.
Praying to a Higher Power will not change one's sexual orientation. Someday, brain surgery might possibly be an option. Possibly?
However, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong. It just is!!!! It does exist, and it has existed for millions of years through positively-sanctioned evolutionary forces. If homosexuality is an evil abomination, evolution would have made gay men's endowments smaller and not bigger.
Apparently, this misinformed doctor thinks changing one's same-sex attraction is a SMART CHOICE. No! Changing this misinformed doctor's view of homosexuality is a SMART CHOICE.
No doubt this misinformed doctor would think penis reduction surgery would be a SMART CHOICE, too. Why not? From the standpoint of personal INJURY, penis reduction would be a SMART CHOICE.
I'm sure quite a few gay men don't attempt to run a 26-mile marathon due to the potential risk of a phallus injury, just like quite a few Dolly Parton-ish women don't attempt to run a 26-mile marathon due to the potential risk of a breast injury.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm"Now I’m sure that you feel that attempting to “cure†homosexuality is in no way akin to cutting off someone’s left arm, and I would agree."
No, but I do think gender reassignment surgery is akin to both, and that is a perfectly legal practice in the US.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:04 pmComment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Nuts isn't it? We Brits were a bunch of b@stards. We're moving on though, as is the US.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:05 pmPlease let the good doctor try his curing skills on Mary Cheney, Heather Po, Mark Foley, Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon/James Guckert and his WH clients first.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm"If you think that gay people should be “curedâ€, then go about persuading the medical and psychological communities of that."
again that is not what he is doing. he “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbianâ€, he does not actively go out to "cure" people.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pmBut in this case it is a heterosexual being judged based on his beliefs. He is not demonizing the gays, he has offerred counseling to those who wish to change their lives, so why do folks want to demonize him?
Comment by Mr. President
He's not being demonized because he's heterosexual, Mr P, he's being demonized because he's a hack.
You were being sensible a minute ago, why are you being a twat now?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pmAnd, I find it interesting that you call me a “homo-fascist†because I facetiously put up a point that is very similar to yours on the other side.
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
What point is that?
Reference the "point" in my post that corresponds to yours. Cut and paste them one under the other so I can see your parody.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:07 pm#215,
No problem.
Andy’s statement in comment #185:
I’m sorry the existence of homosexuality offends certain people, but it is their own offendedness they have to live with. Just as I am offended by religious right wingnuts, I accept that I have to live with the fact they exist.
Your statement in comment #189
We’re sorry if the hetero attitude offends you, but it is your own offendedness that you have to live with.
Andy’s comment was that it is unfortunate that some people don’t like apples, but the fact that they don’t like apples is their issue and not the issue of the people who like apples or are indifferent to apples.
Your comment was that you’re sorry that oranges offend Andy (a statement devoid of factual basis), but the fact that some people like apples is just something that he’ll have to live with.
Andy’s comment makes perfect sense. Your comment is gibberish.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Indeed
June 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pmThe only REAL "ex-gays" are late-bloomer bisexuals. I should know. I'm one.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:09 pmHe’s not being demonized because he’s heterosexual, Mr P, he’s being demonized because he’s a hack.
You were being sensible a minute ago, why are you being a twat now?
Comment by Zooey — June 1, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Well, actually, I should apologize to Andy. It was Fed and KRank who deserve the twatty attitude.
Sorry Andy.
and Dave, I like my English wit a bit more dry, but well done.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pmComment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 1, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
You're an idiot.
It was KRank's post that didn't make sense, not Andy's
I'm ignoring you, retard.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pmComment by Zooey — June 1, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Great use of the tw@t word - you'd be welcome down my local pub / Ateyo stand at Ashton Gate anyday.
Mr. President, I pose one question to you about the sexual re-orientation therapy. This is anecdotal so feel free to dismiss. A mate of mine was so far in the closet he was in Narnia. It took him 6 very painful years to come out of the closet - we all knew he was gay but it was up to Big M to say it. When he came out he was like a new man, full of life and energy. Why would you want to send a man back to being a paranoid wreck, scared to behave in a way that made him feel happy and fulfilled?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:13 pmThe only REAL “ex-gays†are late-bloomer bisexuals. I should know. I’m one.
Comment by SkeeterVT
It must be nice to love everybody. :)
Except the whackjob trolls, of course.....
June 1st, 2007 at 7:14 pm#233,
I think you might be a little generous with your assessment of the "evolving" sensibilities of Brits.
Of course you guys have no problem with gays. First off, you are led by a queen. Duh. Secondly, a lot of you chaps have such bad smiles that no member of the opposite sex would want anything to do with you. Which, I guess, is why the few "Bettys" that you have spend all their time in France, Italy, and Sweden.
Seriously, though, what we see is the issue is "hate" and not what is the popular target for that "hate" is at the current moment. Therein lay the problem and not what a person's sexual preference is or what the quality of their dental plan is.
Food for thought.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:17 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
I would not. That is why I feel that it is better that the doctor here is open with his beliefs, and he should not be judged or oppressed if he has not hurt anyone.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:19 pmGreat use of the tw@t word - you’d be welcome down my local pub / Ateyo stand at Ashton Gate anyday.
Comment by UKBristolDave
When is the next match? You'll have to get me drunk before I eat a kebab. :-D
June 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
By the way, my minister was a lesbian and I too have gay friends. I am not advocating any sort of anti-gay agenda here. I am merely holding everyone to the same standard.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pmTwat: a fine word which has sadly falling into rare usage. Happy to see your return. You pair so well with so many adjectives. I trust some of my other old favs such as dickwad, dicktard, douche bag, and cornhole are close behind
Fu#@in' AAAAA!
June 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm#242,
I don't think that you know what "ignore" means. However, I am certain that you have mastered "ignorance".
Good luck to you.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm#235 “If you think that gay people should be “curedâ€, then go about persuading the medical and psychological communities of that.â€
again that is not what he is doing. he “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbianâ€, he does not actively go out to “cure†people.
-----------------
I think you're losing any coherence. Doing wrong is still doing wrong, whether you actively seek out people or let them come to you.
Conversion therapy, regardless of the merits, which we would disagree on, is a phony cure. If you think it works, prove it. Oh that's right, you can't, can you?
All you and other people can do is offer up anecdotal examples that no one can verify, that pay no attention to the fact that anyone can pretend to be anything. That the few supposed "cures" add up to a miniscule fraction of a percent of all the gay folks looking for "cures", evidence that no scientist would remotely accept as evidence of efficatious "treatment".
And, let me walk you through the facetious part again, wherein you called me a "homofascist". And let me revise my example a little bit, to bring it more in line with what you say this guy is doing.
Let us say many people were to say right wing Christians needed to be "cured". Let us further say that right wing Christians were persecuted to the extent they no longer wished to be right wing Christians, due to societal pressure.
Let us say that because many people said this, and right wingers were often reviled, right wing Christians were to flock to unapproved "conversion" centers, run by the VERY PEOPLE WHO REVILED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, wherein they were subjected to horrible and harmful psychological experiments against all medical advice.
Now let us say I ran one of these centers, wherein I were to screw up many right wing Christians for life, where many of them would later commit suicide, etc. Let us say I offered up anecdotal "proof" that they were "cured" because I handpicked some people to say that they were formerly right wing Christians, but now are not, based on my "therapy".
Do you think my position and my actions would be respectable in any way, simply because I let people "come to me"?
That, to me, is what you are trying to justify here, on the other side.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pmFed the Fcuk Up! has no position, he is only arguing for arguments sake.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pmSex Test
Pen*s goes with?
A) Zooey's v*gina
June 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pmB) small animal
C) electric socket
D) Wilco's an*s
E) all the above
Your first statement made no sense, your second was better so I answered it, now shut your trap if you ain’t got nothing left to say.
Comment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Go f*ck yourself, troll.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:23 pmUKBristolDave. I am conservative, but I dig gays. In fact, when I run out of women to have sex with, I'll probably start down the man list.
I believe everyone should have equal rights. I think the issue with conservatives and gay marriage is this. They mistakenly believe that if their kids see two men or two women getting married the kids will be somehow motivated to become gay, because it would validate the pairings as a choice conservative don't want people to consider. I believe if more conservatives believed (as I do) that you are born either straight or gay (and it's not a choice you make), there would be less conservatives that would be concerned with there kids "turning" gay. The problem there is: If you believe in God as the creator, you would have to recognize that God intentionally made gay people gay and hence indorses the behavior.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm"Doing wrong is still doing wrong, whether you actively seek out people or let them come to you."
Okay, we have a legitimate point of dispute here. I do not see a problem with his church activities, you do. I respect your opinion on that.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pmFu#@in’ AAAAA!
Comment by dbadass
The t-word should never be over-used, but it's essential to use it when confronted with a confirmed twat.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pmWilco
are u ???
HIV +
AIDS ???
Sexual terrorist ???
June 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pmFlaco: "Homosexuals represent 1 to 2% of the population."
You know, Flaco, as a gay person, you should know that people with your sexual orientation make about 8 to 10% of the population.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pmComment by Flaco — June 1, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
F*ck off, you limp-dicked moron.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm"Do you think my position and my actions would be respectable in any way, simply because I let people “come to me�"
No, but that is not what the article says, is it? Read the links, this guy is just giving people spiritual guidance.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pmThey use dildos for penetration and the men have serious medical issues of the rectum.
Homosexuals need medical treatment for rectal bleeding.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pm253
June 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pmDamn! This is an easy one. I often include these types of questions into the tests of my students as well. It helps the less intellectual ones since all answers are correct as it is a matter to be decided by the individual and of course in some possible cases Zooey and Wilco. As to the small animal, there may be some more compex questions there but those are probably beyond the scope of this thread.
Captain Man-bonker: "I am conservative, but I dig gays. In fact, when I run out of women to have sex with, I’ll probably start down the man list."
Family values, republican style.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:31 pmThanks for the complimnet Zoo :-D heh
June 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm"I would not. That is why I feel that it is better that the doctor here is open with his beliefs, and he should not be judged or oppressed if he has not hurt anyone.
-Mr. President"
Actually, I would say that the gay people who have committed suicide as a result of attempts to "convert them" to being straight have been oppressed.
And, looky here, we have a new standard for oppression!
I had no idea that being denied a plum government job because someone is going against his entire profession (not to mention the scientific method itself, for a science post) amounted to "oppression".
That's good to know.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:35 pmBluedog. Well, do you want on the list or not?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:36 pmThe t-word should never be over-used, but it’s essential to use it when confronted with a confirmed twat.
Comment by Zooey — June 1, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Like all the best things in life!!
June 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pmIs the blessing of moderation a gift or an acquired condition?
And, looky here, we have a new standard for oppression!
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
nope, same standard. he is being persecuted for his personal beliefs.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pm#267,
My gay friend called and asked to be taken off your "man list". He said that he doesn't date anything under 5 inches and that he would have to date you about three times to achieve just that.
Sorry wittle guy.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pmMr. President-
Ok, we can agree this far. If it's just a matter of personal opinion, and just a "church social" in which he says that people shouldn't be gay, then that IN AND OF ITSELF shouldn't disqualify anyone for anything.
The issue for me is performing unapproved medicine, or providing bad scientific advice. That goes for whether it's in a "church setting" or otherwise.
The position of Surgeon General is to advise the nation on medical scientific matters.
If this person agrees that homosexuality is a mental sickness that should attempt to be "cured" through medical means, or psychological therapy, whether or not his own medical community agrees with him, that is not a good indicator that someone ought to be Surgeon General.
And his previous activities in attempting to "cure" gay people, knowing, as he doubtless knows, mainstream medical advice, whether or not gay people "come to him" is suspicious, and he should be questioned about that.
Again the position this man is seeking is that of Surgeon General.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pmIs the blessing of moderation a gift or an acquired condition?
Comment by no child left behind
Yes. :)
June 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pmIs the blessing of moderation a gift or an acquired condition?
Comment by no child left behind — June 1, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Well, that depends on your definition of "blessing" (it has a denotation synonymous with "gift" in one sense of the word).
Other then that, read your Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:44 pm"The issue for me is performing unapproved medicine, or providing bad scientific advice. That goes for whether it’s in a “church setting†or otherwise."
I feel the same.
"And his previous activities in attempting to “cure†gay people, knowing, as he doubtless knows, mainstream medical advice, whether or not gay people “come to him†is suspicious, and he should be questioned about that."
I missed where it said he tried to "cure", could you find the quote and show me where he says that?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pmF*ck off, you limp-dicked moron.
Comment by Zooey
Zooey, you need to stop bottling up your emotions.
Let it out. Let it out!
June 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pmflaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pmnope, same standard. he is being persecuted for his personal beliefs.
-Mr. President
So, if I an engineer whose previous projects sometimes came crashing down, sometimes killing people, is that too, a matter of personal beliefs? Or, let us say, a potential engineer, who DESIGNED projects that would, according to the position of all other respected engineers, kill people -- would disqualifying me from the position of the Nation's Chief Engineer not be, rather than a matter of "oppression", simply a matter of selecting the right person for the job?
You are trying to turn this into a matter of personal beliefs. But it's not "merely" a matter of beliefs. It is a belief that is central to the job role of the person being nominated.
Conversion therapy kills. It has killed in the past and will kill again. The "efficacy" of the treatment for those who survive it doesn't pass the most rudimentary scientific scrutiny, let alone exhaustive scrutiny.
I am saying the personal beliefs are indicative of a matter that is AT BEST highly suspicious as to qualifications for someone being in the position he is, a medical doctor, to hold the post of Surgeon General.
Opinions are one thing, actions another. And this post is a post in which opinion is important. IF a reasonable person would conclude that in his job role, he would put out opinions that the entire medical community finds not only distasteful, but ethically repugnant to the practice of medicine, he should not have that job.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm273
June 1st, 2007 at 7:57 pmI believe NCLB was considering the "anything which makes one happy or contented" definition. Can't speak for 'em though. Oh and your point was...
"So, if I an engineer whose previous projects sometimes came crashing down, sometimes killing people, is that too, a matter of personal beliefs?"
no, that is a physical state of affairs
June 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm#278
June 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pmStop stealing my thoughts
It's a garantee that if the President has nominated him he is going to be the lowest scrapings of human experience. e.g. various mental disorders, and/or mental retardation.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pmComment by no child left behind — June 1, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Your question was ambiguous, you did not provide the sense of your use of the word "blessing".
June 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pmComment by Mr. President — June 1, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Sorry, been away for a while.
Can I just say it is a pleasure to discuss issues with you. We have different opinions but respect that. I don't want you to think that I lump you in with Fed the Fcuk Up! who has nothing to offer but insults about dental plans.
Where were with if that's OK?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pm"Or, let us say, a potential engineer, who DESIGNED projects that would, according to the position of all other respected engineers, kill people — would disqualifying me from the position of the Nation’s Chief Engineer not be, rather than a matter of “oppressionâ€, simply a matter of selecting the right person for the job?"
Well, this example is a rather forced parallel. In this case, I would not think that you would be disqualified, you would just not be hired.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm"Conversion therapy kills"
O.K.... where does it say he practices conversion therapy?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:05 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
It's all good
June 1st, 2007 at 8:06 pmIF... he would put out opinions that the entire medical community finds not only distasteful, but ethically repugnant to the practice of medicine, he should not have that job.
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
agreed
June 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pmflaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(
Wow another compliment thanks TPers
June 1st, 2007 at 8:08 pmflaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
You project much???
June 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pm#274
I missed where it said he tried to “cureâ€, could you find the quote and show me where he says that?
Mr. President
------------------------
I believe you are dancing on the head of a pin here. Whether or not the word "cure" was actually used my Dr. Holsinger, "ministering" in the context it is being used here "to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian"-- their own words, is essentially the same thing.
No matter. I am sure the actual quotes by Holsinger himself will turn up here or there -- though you are right, after an exhaustive 5 minute search on google I did not find him using the actual word "cure". Point to you. But, even if not, this is what confirmation hearings are for.
It is a legitimate suspicion for someone who is a doctor to hold views that gay people are disordered against the medical community's staunch views based on the history.
It is also worthwhile checking to find out what exactly was done during this "ministering".
June 1st, 2007 at 8:11 pmflaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PCL)
Keep in mind that "flaco" is short for "flaccido". Or perhaps "flaccidito" would be more accurate, as Zooey has already noted.
You forgot to include the phrase "obsessed with rectal bleeding".
June 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pmComment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I'm not here to score points, only to learn about the news and other stuff.
I need to do some work right now, so I have to go, but I too feel that more investigation needs to be done before we judge this man.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:18 pmMr. President
I suppose it comes down to whether you think that there is something here that needs "curing".
Seeing the internal struggle that a friend went through when coming out and how happy he was when he finally did, I can't see anything to cure.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:23 pmIF… he would put out opinions that the entire medical community finds not only distasteful, but ethically repugnant to the practice of medicine, he should not have that job.
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Why don't you let us know when he states an opinion that the ENTIRE medical community opposes. Many doctors have given up on morals and say that homosexuality is ok. But some still have the courage to stand up for what they know is right and say it is a choice to live a homosexual lifestyle and it is wrong.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pmComment by zxz — June 1, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
What evidence do you have to show that homosexuality is wrong?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pmComment by zxz — June 1, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
C'mon zxz, I really am interested. Why is homosexuality wrong?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:50 pm"Why don’t you let us know when he states an opinion that the ENTIRE medical community opposes. Many doctors have given up on morals and say that homosexuality is ok. But some still have the courage to stand up for what they know is right and say it is a choice to live a homosexual lifestyle and it is wrong."
Hi xyz.
I will never understand certain people's beliefs that they can somehow with magical Christian radar "know" what "choices" other people make.
You also appear to "know" that "many doctors have given up on morals" versus stating their considered medical opinion.
The governing bodies of both the APA and the AMA have removed homosexuality from their disorders list. That's good enough to stand in for "the opinion of the medical community", even though, there's much much more than just that.
As far as you are concerned, I think living a judgemental moralizing-for-others lifestyle is "wrong" as well. And no one argues that THAT is not a choice.
So, we both believe the other is morally wrong. Welcome to life and reality.
I take no issue with you thinking for yourself that homosexuality is wrong, or that you feel that I'm "immoral" for being a homosexual -- as I said I think you are immoral as well based on your post. I merely disagree with you or yours attempting to interfere with my life in any way because of it, or for right wing Christianists to speak untruth in an official capacity for the purposes of fostering hate against gay people.
I never tried to get a right wing Christian zealot fired from his or her job that had nothing to do with those things. I never tried to deny a right wing Christian zealot housing. And few gay people I know would try or even agree with doing that either.
You all go after us with a vengeance and then claim that we are being "intolerant" because we push back and merely demand the right to live without busybody interference.
Let me remind you it is not gay people who ever started out life having an immediate problem with Christians, it is people who claim to be Christians who go after gay people who then became sick of being got after.
Then, you all claim you're being "persecuted" because y'all are disliked because of your antisocial behavior. Well, that is also because of YOUR CHOICES.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:50 pmflaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(
Wow another compliment thanks TPers
Comment by Flaco — June 1, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
flaco
Your posts frequently portray you as a cowardly, disrespectful, conscience-deprived, socially depraved, immature, mean-spirited individual with a very bad case of low self-esteem. Are you really like this or do you just play this on TP?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
You project much???
Comment by Flaco — June 1, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
_________________________________
Apparently, by putting these two responses together, I am projecting compliments to myself.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pmComment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
For me the issue is that the religious point of view (be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish) has not progressed in any real sense for a few hundred years. Beliefs are based on books written 700AD - or earlier. In every other field of human endeavour we have moved on significantly. Spirituality seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:59 pmI am ashamed of all you people speaking so awful about other people. Yes Gays are people too. If my parents taught me to speak so disrespectfully of others they would have boxed my ears one good. I was born gay end of story, how dare you people pretend to know my life, you do not. Dont you think we gay folks know better then anyone else who we love. Stop being such idiots, mind your own business and let people live there life. God has indeed planned gays to be of this earth. If you cant understand how some one can love someone of the same sex this is not my problem or yours. Stay the hell out of other peoples business. We will share our life's with the person we love.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pmMany doctors have given up on morals and say that homosexuality is ok.
___________________________________
Herein is a major flaw in the "homosexualists" way of thinking. "Morals" is not exclusively owned by and, therefore, not exclusively defined by religious values or dogma, which are highly varied between religious organizations and, in fact, between those individual members of many particular religious organizations. As a case in point, I belong to the United Methodist Church and disagree with Holsinger who is also of this same Protestant branch. There are, I believe "universal morals" which are entirely secular and social. Even here, however, there are values (such as forgiveness) that government cannot and should not attempt to control. To attempt to define those of us working for the value of social justice for homosexuals as "immoral" is utterly wrong because we are exercising our moral secular (and sometimes sacred) values.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:09 pmComment by Gary — June 1, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
We don't all think like that. I'm a hetro male but I would never try and say that the love I have for my Princess is greater than the love you have for your partner.
I wish you all the best.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:11 pmFor me the issue is that the religious point of view (be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish) has not progressed in any real sense for a few hundred years. Beliefs are based on books written 700AD - or earlier. In every other field of human endeavour we have moved on significantly. Spirituality seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages.
----
Hi Dave,
Well, if my back were against the wall and I absolutely HAD to give my earnest opinion, I would tend to agree with that mostly.
But, as an atheist, I tend to respect the right of people to believe as they would believe whether I agree with those beliefs or not.
It's when certain of those beliefs are translated into actions I have a problem.
Some people who call themselves Christians in the United States seem to believe based on various factors -- "being in the majority", "being a religion", etc., etc. that this gives them the right to not have to be offended or start prescribing modes and means of living that fall within their belief structure to people who simply don't share those beliefs.
And also to make laws, or refuse to make laws, based not on justice or prudent social rules, but somehow based on their spiritual ideologies.
My position is that this way of operating is destructive to social order and also to living together in peace and harmony.
I am more than willing to let right wing Christians (or indeed, members of any other religion whatsoever) live as they want to live, as long as they don't hurt other people and obey the civil laws we all have to obey, and otherwise not slander people or conduct their stupid little "culture war". Obviously, we will try to get the laws changed where those laws are purely religiously based and persecutorial. But they do not seem to share that contract. And the lack of adhering to that social contract is where I begin to have a real big problem.
Right wing Christians (or even, often, just right wingers in general) often to me don't seem to want to subscribe to "leave them alone, and they'll leave you alone, as long as no one is breaking any laws". They seem to want to either subject me to unjust, harassing rules based on their religious ideas, FORCE ME to subscribe to their religion or a dumbed down version of it, or else get rid of me so they can have their perfect Christianoid holy land.
And, I'm sorry, this is just not acceptable. We all have to live in societies where we are just not going to like certain people. That's life. And the sooner the right wing, Christians, muslims, or whoever, get that, and get it good, the happier we'll all be.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PCL) — June 1, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I couldn't agree more. My morality is defined by my experience, not by what someone tells me to believe. I don't believe in any God but I know that it's wrong to steal, lie and kill. I also know that is it wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults behaving in a manner that makes them both happy.
The basis of morality doesn't lie in a book over a thousand years old. It lies in serious introspection.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:16 pmComment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Indeed. My main worry is that how can a compromise be reached between groups of people who, for some reason or another, think that unless you follow their way of thinking then you are going to hell? Religion is divisive. Hell, I've seen what sectarianism does - the troubles in Northern Ireland were about religion and it came down to worshipping the same God in a slightly different way.
How is this rational? How can it be seen as a good use of time and effort?
June 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Well, right now, false "compromise" is my main worry.
Here's the deal - for anti-gay-rights folks: we get everything we want, none of which affects Christians or others in any way except those who want to be busybodies and interfere in other people's lives without any right to do so.
Don't lie, don't cheat, don't slander and don't try to elevate yourself to the status of Mother Theresa. DO defend yourself if you are being unjustly attacked, no more and no less.
In fact, it would be immoral for me to try to accept anything less on behalf of other gay people.
"Compromise" such as accepting rules where we can be gay as long as we lie about it, or that we can accept some poor second class substitute for the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, is just another form of oppression.
And those "compromises" don't even hold. Wingers are famous for saying one thing to get their way, e.g. "We aren't against civil unions, we just don't want you to use the word 'marriage'" and then, as soon as the "compromise" is reached, try to yank it away.
I've yet to see an anti-gay bigot acting honorably in any kind of "compromise" situation. When and if I do, you'll be the first one I let know ;)
(But if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath).
June 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
No compromise as available. As the Christian right believes God is driving them then they won't back down.
They scare me.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pmComment by UKBristolDave — June 1, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
No compromise as available. As the Christian right believes God is driving them then they won’t back down.
They will have to, eventually, if they want to go on living a peaceful and harmonious life in a moderately easy-to-live-in secular society, where for all their bluster about how they hate gays and it's so wrong, they can pretty much do and believe as they wish.
As someone else said once, "No justice, no peace".
We are not going to back down either. I would be the last one to suggest violence to get my way, and just to be perfectly clear, I am not advocating it now and staunchly decry its use, except in uttermost defense.
But, sooner or later, if the people who advocate suppressing others go too far, they will lead themselves and everyone who follows them into a situation of such hubris, that they will be defeated. And, when and if that defeat comes, it will be ugly, and those who have been oppressed for so long, will not be inclined to be merciful to those who led the attack against us.
I can tell you now, in such a hypothetical situation, I would not only be inclined to try to get justice for that particular overreach, but for all acts of anti-gay atrocity by the perpetrators and their associates that ever occurred.
The Wiesenthal center tracked people across the globe for decades after the defeat of Germany. Some of those people were eventually hanged for their crimes against humanity.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pmWell Holsinger has NOT been able to cure Bush of sleeping with male hookers, like Jeff Gannon, so his ideas of curing homosexuality are bogus.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pmComment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Mate, as long as people like me and you still breathe there will not be another holocaust.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pmComment by Gary — June 1, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Well said, Gary.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pmNo compromise as available. As the Christian right believes God is driving them then they won’t back down.
They scare me.
Comment by UKBristolDave
I think it's right to be afraid of them, UKDave.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pmGiven that he has established a reputation for lying to himself, his loved ones and his congregation, I don’t know if there’s a way he could “prove†it to me. See, that’s the thing about “trustâ€. Once it’s damaged, it can never fully recover.
And, since I don’t believe that one can change one’s sexual orientation, nor do I think homosexuality is anything to be “curedâ€, I have to say that he could not “prove†to me that he’s “curedâ€.
So homosexuality cannot be cured because it is impossible to prove that it can be cured?
Interesting circular logic I suppose.
Let me try: Global warming cannot exist because it is impossible to prove that it does exist.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pmHomosexuals need medical treatment for rectal bleeding.
Comment by Flaco
I'm sure whowever shit Flaco out had some pretty serious rectal bleeding. And he's certainly a huge pain in the ass for all of us.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pmI could try finding some clever way to say it, but I'm tired, so I'll be blunt.
M123, you're an idiot.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:19 pm#315
And to the plate we have namecalling liberal number 1! Good one!
June 1st, 2007 at 11:26 pmComment by m12 — June 1, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
And to the plate we have.....?
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am"You all go after us with a vengeance and then claim that we are being “intolerant†because we push back and merely demand the right to live without busybody interference.
Then, you all claim you’re being “persecuted†because y’all are disliked because of your antisocial behavior. Well, that is also because of YOUR CHOICES."
Comment by AndyS In Colorado — June 1, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
I'm not sure who you are talking about Andy. I've never "gone after" anyone with or without a vengeance. I don't hate gays and I don't fear gays (heading off the homophobe label). I treat everyone the same with very few exceptions. I belive homosexuality is a choice and it is wrong. Live that way if you wish. It makes no difference to me. The only thing I think gays should be denied is marriage. I, and many other Christians, believe it is a sham to equate gay marriage with the marriage that God intended. Yes, it most certainly is based upon religion and I am well aware there are many non-Christians in our country. You all seem to ignore all the concessions Christians have made over the years to non-Christians. When God was gradually removed from many areas of our lives, Christians, being the majority could have made changes to the constitution to stop it, but didn't. We don't want anyone telling us how to worship, so we have accepted the changes to maintain our great nation. I don't care if you live as a homosexual, serve in the army, live where you want, etc. I don't want anyone to be hurt, physically or otherwise, because they choose to live that lifestyle. I do, however, believe the majority has the right to make some choices. If the majority wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals, then it should stand. You cannot deny that heterosexuality is still the norm. If my opinion is the minority, then so be it. And I have never been accused of "antisocial" behavior and don't believe I ever will be.
"Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t slander and don’t try to elevate yourself to the status of Mother Theresa. DO defend yourself if you are being unjustly attacked, no more and no less."
I would certainly never compare myself to Mother Teresa. Very few of us will ever approach her service and winess. I also don't consider myself to be better than anyone, Christian or not. We all have our temptations and we choose whether to give in to them or not. Mine don't happen to be the same as yours, but they are temptations just the same.
"They scare me."
Comment by UKBristolDave
"I think it’s right to be afraid of them, UKDave."
Comment by Zooey — June 1, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
These kinds of comments are rather tired these days. Except for a few nut jobs here and there, Christians are the least of the people you need to fear. There are plenty of non-Christain flakes around as well.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 amAn aside:
As a matter of personal curiosity, how many supporters of homosexuality or self style homosexuals posting here, actively oppose abortion?
That is, how many think it's Ok to be a homosexual, and it's wrong to abort an unborn child?
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 amI think life begins at conception. I think abortion is wrong. I think we should use education and birth control to curb the amount of abortions we have. I don't believe abstinence is the answer, because people are going to have sex, they always have. I believe the Christian position on sex is actually increasing the amount of abortions we have. I believe it is as OK to be a homosexual as it is to be a heterosexual.
Sorry to post and run but some of us have to work.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 amAnother reactionary lunatic...we're doomed.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 amI once switched from Straight to Gay in a single afternoon. It was the Seventies. I was in college....Good times...
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 amTo zxz: When you point out exactly WHERE "God" "intended" marriage to be ANYTHING, then we'll have a real starting point to work from. In the Bible itself, "God" didn't seem to have any problems with Jacob getting married to TWO sisters (and then also sleeping with their handmaidens, just for a little extra fun). "God" didn't have any problems with Solomon (you know, the guy who built THE temple) and his HUNDREDS of wives AND concubines. And, in Paul's little additions to the work, Paul suggested that "God" wanted ALL "His children" to live in celibacy (reading Paul's words strongly suggests that marriage is nothing more than a necessary evil). This "God" of yours didn't invent marriage; the wording in Genesis 2 offers an explanation for WHY people would marry but no more than that. (Most mythologies have tales explaining natural, and social, phenomena but we don't accept those as having any validity.)
Marriage FOR MILLENNIA had no purpose aside from transferring property rights from one generation to the next and by the Middle Ages, marriage was restricted as an exclusive privilege of the aristocracy. During America's slavery era, slaves could only marry with the owners' permission, and could still be separated at any time.
Marriage, in the United States, was determined to be a CIVIL right, guaranteed to ALL citizens (courtesy of the Loving decision in 1967). No American can be married without a STATE-issued marriage license, and a couple can be married ANYWHERE, as long as the person presiding at the ceremony has permission FROM THE STATE. (That's why the ceremonies--even religious ones--generally include the line "by the authority vested in me by the State of . . . .") You might have heard of a young woman named Britney Spears who married a longtime friend of hers in Las Vegas one New Year's Eve, and then had the marriage annulled about 48 hours later. Quickie marriages are perfectly legal. As the law stands now, a man could meet a woman in Vegas at 4pm and get married by 5pm; that marriage will be upheld as perfectly legal in all 50 states. Why? Because the marriage is a CIVIL ceremony and the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause mandates it. (Incidentally, if the same man and woman happen to meet while on a cruise and can obtain a marriage license somewhere on the cruise, that marriage--even overseas--will still be recognized as valid in the US.) This "marriage is something God intended" is just plain bullsh!t.
As for your "when God was gradually removed" comment, you're once again wading waist-deep in the horse hockey. Read some of the REAL history behind the original Engels complaint. The school prayer issue was only PARTLY due to being "offensive" to non-Christians. A much larger part was the fact that the schools were teaching children the MANNER OF HOW to pray--the way to hold their hands and how to bow their heads; strangely, the parents were somewhat offended by the notion that they weren't competent enough to teach their children the "right" way to pray. (Incidentally, the very reason that Catholic Schools exist is because the public schools in the 19th Century insisted on using the King James Version of the Bible--a version that is "flawed" by Catholic standards.) You further seem to suggest that non-Christians are being some sort of ingrates for not "thanking" Christians for the very opportunity to merely be fed the scraps from the table. This country was not founded on any religious notions. (Jamestown was a COMMERCIAL enterprise--as was the lost Croatoan colony of the 1580s.) Plymouth--and by extension, Massachusetts--yes, that was founded on religious principles. But those principles weren't allowed to be questioned. Those who "dared" question the authorities were beaten, imprisoned, even exiled on the point of death. Read up on Roger Williams and Anne Hutchison, and see just how well-received THEIR religious ideas were to the Puritan leaders in 17th-century Massachusetts. Check to see how well-received Roman Catholics were outside of Maryland. Don't forget either that America's slave trade was not only permitted, but actively endorsed, by religious authorities until the early 1800s (it was a way to "save pagan souls"). Nope, not gonna sit still and thank "massa Christian" for lettin' me bask in his "holy light" and share in his "blessin's of America". I prefer to remember that our Founding Fathers were Freethinkers when it came to religion. Most despised the state of "organized" religion. Jefferson even created his own version of the Bible (removing anything that promoted Jesus as a magical figure, but keeping that which proved his humanity and humility).
Why you would choose to believe that homosexuality is a "choice" is utterly beyond belief if you truly believe in a God as you claim to do. By the very definition that most Jews, Christians and Muslims accept about God is that God is Unknowable, that God is Beyond Mortal Understanding. Why is it so hard to imagine that this God of yours might actually have designed some of His "children" to be homosexual? If nothing else, you can ascribe it to the same perverted sense of humor that He displays when a church gets burned or when a tornado plows through a high school during a school day or when a mosquito decides to make a Happy Meal of you or when your dog gets fleas or when millions of Jews are allowed to die in concentration camps or when Pharaoh's heart suddenly hardens every time the Jews get ready to leave Egypt just so He can send another round of plagues to torment the Egyptians? Maybe it makes your God happy for some of His "children" to find themselves attracted to members of the same sex because He wants them to be happy with someone who makes them happy?
I'd also have to disagree somewhat with your last statement in #318. If it's all the same to you, I'll be afraid of ALL the flakes, Christian and non-Christian. BUT, since there seem to be a heck of a lot of the Christian variety in this country, I'll be a bit more afraid of them. Okay?
To Captain Mantastic: You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but unfortunately, life cannot begin at conception for a very simple reason. Biology. Just because an egg gets fertilized by a sperm (which is "conception") doesn't mean that it's a done-deal. That fertilized egg has to attach itself to the uterine wall quickly or risk becoming a casualty of the woman's "period". Even that attachment doesn't guarantee that the embryo will succeed. Literally hundreds of events can happen in the first month that can lead to that embryo's demise (even something as simple as a cold could be a disaster for an embryo).
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 amI'd also have to ask if you've considered the LEGAL ramifications of a "life begins at conception" reality. Suddenly, everything changes. You can buy liquor at 20 years and 3 months. You can vote at 17 years and 3 months. How will twins (or triplets or other multiple births) know who's really the older sibling? They were all conceived at the same time (well, even that can pose a problem with the rare cases of a woman who gets pregnant by two different men or two separate eggs being fertilized by two different sperm simultaneously). I know. "The law won't change in those regards" is the usual response, but why? You make a law stating "life begins at conception" and all other laws relating to birth have to change to reflect that one. Plain and simple. (Just like when the national drinking age was raised to 21: Those who were already of legal drinking age at the time--18, 19, or 20 years old--didn't lose their rights; the law simply applied to those who were not of legal age when the law was signed.) If the law says that a 165-day old embryo/fetus in the womb has the same legal rights as its 27-year old mother, then someone who's 20 years and 92 days old should have the same legal rights as someone who's 21 years and 1 day old, and not let that little birth-canal experience suddenly restart life's "legal" aspects.
i look forward to this guy getting torn apart by everyone ranging from the media to the american medical association. i wonder if ken mehlman and mary cheney will step up to the plate and support this dude
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 amDuring pregnancy, ALL fetal brains start out as female. However in male fetuses, after about 8 weeks, the fetal testicles start producing testosterone, which masculinizes the female brain. If the testosterone levels are not sufficient, or if the timing is delayed, etc, then there will be "gradients" of maleness. This "gradient" is primary in deteriming orientation, in my opinion. Once the "wet-ware" is set, there is no amount of sexual rehabilitation that will change it....the die is cast. Can we move on now?
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 amIt doesnt bother the queer community that the life expectancy of the male queer is less than 50 yoa?
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 amI think that we should quarantine every queer male with AIDS to keep them from spreading the disease! How do you like that?
This man has got it right and should be confirmed! Forget the PC garbage and lets just do what needs to be done for a while.
It is not genetic that people should become queers. Even the animals around us know better.
Here is the one that will drive you queers crazy,,,,,Homosexuality is also an abomination to our creator......can hardly wait for judgement day when you people are bending your knee to God and asking for mercy..............
There are so many gay men who tried all through their adolescence and young adulthood to conform to society by acting straight. Many make the mistake of marrying. Some have children. Many use repression as a method of dealing with the problem, and live unhappily for their entire life. The regrets these people have for involving others in these decisions (for example the case of the New Jersey governor) follow them the rest of their lives.
Living with the stigma of being gay in this society is not something someone easily chooses. I can say, however, that living openly gay is immeasurably better than living a lie. It therefore causes gay people like me real distress to see heterosexual politicians like Holsinger encouraging the self destructive attempts at sexual reorientation. There is no good science that shows positive results, and there is plent of evidence it not only doesn't work, it effects real psychological harm.
Right wingnut politicians are willing to do real psychological damage to real human beings on the basis of bigotry and superstition. The unnecessary infusion of this issue into the political discourse is but another example of the hateful divisiveness Mad King George is intentionally subjecting this nation to in his ongoing reign of terror.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 amHolsinger's vote to bar a practicing lesbian from becoming a pastor was perfectly in line with the official policies of the United Methodist Church.
That policy was affirmed by a 577 to 37 vote by the Methodist General Conference in 1996.
More importantly, your blog entry wrongly attributes to Holsinger the statement that homosexuality is a life choice. In fact, that seems to be was the statement of Rev. Calhoun, the minister of the Hope Springs Community Church.
I don't see any indication on the HSCC website that they have any sort of active ex-gay type ministry.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 amGays need a cure.Prevent the spread of aids.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 amI support Holsinger fully, The argument between gay rights and christianity is ongoing because bottom line they know that it is wrong, what do you do when you're wrong, you justify, argue and get as much support as you can to sway things your way. At what point are the Christians going to stand up for what the Bible and Christ word says......if you don't stand for something you fall for anything. I recently was in a Penera Bread resturant sitting next to two gentlement who were meeting for the first time and were obviously on a date....they were discussing their careers, likes/dislikes, families, challenges with their choice of this lifestyle. One was a active duty military physician who stated that it was obvious to his colleagues that he was gay but because of don't ask don't tell he was "safe". You probably wondering why I know so much about this conversation its because they were loud, proud and assure that the entire immediate area was privy to their conversation and they reaped "I'm gay and I'm proud". Come on....if that is your choice don't force me to accept and embrace it. When are the real Christians going to stand up for what we believe and began to preach and teach God's word! Sir you have my support, prayers and Godspeed in your endeavors.....
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 am"Christianity" especially, and all other religious and spiritual mania as well, is a delusion and a "plague" that has killed more people than HIV-AIDS. I will not see the day that Mankind is cured from this mental illness....because...... ....FAITH is an act of personal choice? No not at all. Human DNA predisposes all humans to believe in this spritual nonsense because it helps further the species by cushioning the raw reality of death. To the degree that "Latter Day Humans" have perverted a simple Jewish Carpenter's words should be considered blastphemy. Most "hetero sapiens" have chosen the uncharitable position of prejuduce and gullibility. Where is this culture of LIFE that I hear about? I dread the day that an invitro test can determine sexual orientation. I suspect that abortion (in the name of GOD of course) will be back in vogue.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 amHow much dumber cam W get? Isn't there anyone on his staff who can stop his insanity?
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 amYes, "Zero" cured but quite a few put into deep states of denial!!!!!
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 amAs a Transexual Woman, I cannot seriously beleive that someone as prejudice as this - and dislike of my gay and lesbian sisters and brothers is prejudice - can ever help me with health decisions any better than a frontal Lobotomy.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 amI have always voted mostly republican, but this is the end! Bring on the Democrats!!!
I'm sick of hearing about gays. You would think 95% of the populations is gay. maybe they cant be cured ... but surely they should just shut up and keep their 'normal' lifestyle to themselves ... why is the press so obsessied with the topic ... isnt there somthing IMPORTAnt out there to cover?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 amsick of the whole issue
Thats what the president gets to do. He gets to appoint people who share his beliefs... unfortunately he also cheated in the election, covered it up, then appointed new attorney generals to place the ones that might have done something about it.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amLeave the freaking homosexuals & lesbians alone!
God made them this way-who are we to chastize them?
They can't change- it's their nature.
So long as their partners are consenting & are of legal age, & they don't do it in the street & scare the horses (or in Holsinger's case, the horse's ass), & they observe safe sex practices, leave them alone & get them get on with their lives.
People get so wacked out at the thought of a woman eating pussy or a guy sucking cock or taking it up the ass- grow up & get your mind out of the crotch.
The right wing wackos ought to do something useful, like getting our kids out of the nightmare of Iraq.
I'm straight, by the way.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 amOh, and Mark--we didn't raise this issue. Your glorious leader did by nominating this douchebag for an important medical post. It is your religious bigots in politics who have made our private lives an issue ever since that puke Jesse Helms made us the centerpiece of his hate filled senatorial campaign. When you wingnuts decide to stop opposing equal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, we will gladly give up the spotlight. As long as you keep screwing with our rights, don't expect us to passively roll over and play dead.
And make no mistake about it: this man was selected as an insult to a significant portion of the American population. This is no accident. It is another vile, crass Republican assault on 6 to 8 percent of the Amreican public. When bigots like Holsinger try to "convert" gay people to straight, they are inherently saying there is something wrong with gays. Not so. What is "wrong" is blind reliance on so-called "holy" books that interrupts all rational dialogue.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmWhat a load of propaganda. They call Holsinger a homophobe? Interesting.
Example #1: He founded a church that ministers to ex-gays/lesbians? Well i know my church does. Anyone can go there! And yes, from a medical standpoint, homosexuality is an issue "not of orientation but of lifestyle." Holsinger doesn't care if two people of the same gender like each other, but he is concerned they may be more likely to transmit STD's through sexual activity.
Ex #2: Who's to say his votes were based on sexual orientation?
Ex #3: By warning that the acceptance of homosexuality would hurt the church's attendance rates, Holsinger was simply giving us the facts. Its a shame that reporters scandalize him when in reality the blame lies in the churchgoers.
Someone tell me I'm right.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmGays are not born that way and to think so is complete stupidity. If you are a christian and believe in God, then you know that God created everyone in his image and equal. We all have the same potential in us. Homosexuality is a sin, plain and simple, look it up in the bible. And sin can not be in the presence of God. But you liberal are right, there are probably some people God just didn't want in heaven so he made them gay. Come on give me a break, it's that kind of thinking that is moving this country backward. Things were all a lot better when we had God in our schools, in our government and in our lives. However, if you don't believe in God, then this post will mean nothing to you and pray that you learn the truth before it's too late.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmComment by Uncle Arthur — June 2, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Comment by Uncle Arthur — June 2, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Thank you, Uncle Arthur -- the voice of reason in a sea of insanity.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm"We don't devote enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks."~Bill Watterson.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmEveryone has a right to their opinions. When it becomes a law that everyone must think like everyone else that's a problem. Communism and Fascism tells us what do think, maybe some of you need to find one of those countries and try living there. Who determines what's right and what's wrong? Your conscience does. If I want to believe homosexuality is wrong that's my decision. If someone else wants to believe it's okay that's their's. I'm pretty sure in the USA we can still make our own decisions. This politically correct BS really gets on my nerves.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmThe Third Beatitude appears in Matthew 5:5: Blessed are the meek (οι Ï€Ïαεις): for they shall inherit the earth (κληÏονομήσουσιν την γην)"
.......if you preach hated and discrimination you are not the meek.
The Fifth Beatitude is to be found in Matthew 5:7: "Blessed are the merciful [οι Îλεήμονες]: for they shall obtain mercy"
.........if you preach hated and discrimination, you are not merciful.
The sixth Beatitude is written in Matthew 5:8: "Blessed are the pure in heart (καθαÏοι τη καÏδία): for they shall see God."
.........if you preach hatred and discrimination, you are not pure in heart and you will not see God.
The Seventh Beatitude appears in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers [ειÏηνοποιοί]: for they shall be called the children of God [‘υιοι Θεου, hyioi Theou, sons of God]."
.........if you preach hatred and discrimination, you are not a peacemaker and you shall not be called a child of God.
The Eighth Beatitude appears in Matthew 5:10: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake [οι δεδιωγμÎνοι Îνεκεν δικαιοσÏνης]: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven [βασιλεία των οÏÏανων]."
I rest my case........isn't Divine Creationism great? Let's teach this in our schools, shall we?
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pmBen,
You're right. Homosexuality is considered a sin by the bible, but only certain aspects. Sex for pleasure will always be a sin, and since a homosexual couple can't participate in reproductive sex, any sex they have is a sin. This is not to say that a homosexual relationship is sinful, provided sex is not a part of the relationship. God didn't make people gay just because he didn't want them in heaven. Perhaps he was just testing them with "forbidden fruit."
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pmPerhaps he was just testing them with “forbidden fruit.â€
Comment by Tim
Dude,
You believe in a god who is apparently a totally sick f*ck.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pmTo "Tim of Forbidden Fruit"..........please tell us how your PERSONAL sin is like Mary Magdalene's? Or is your sin not as "great" as hers? I suspect that all "hetero sapiens" would have to convert to Catholicism in order to confess their "sin of sexual pleasure".....each and every weekend I suspect. The Supremacy of Heterosexuals has yet to be determined, given it's own sad history and declining social primacy? I suspect that a more truthful reality is taking hold......one based upon rationalism. Rationalism is also bountiful with forgiveness and charity and we will tolerate you too. Go pray inside of a closet as GOD instructed.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pmHitler could not have done a better job in selecting his departments.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 pmUnbelievable!
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 pmJust when I think Bush can't make any dumber decisions, he nominates this yahoo. I thought medical degrees required a base line of intelligence.
How does any of this show prejudice?
The Bile says that you cannot be a homosexual and a minister, so he opposes that, how is that discrimination?
He has a ministry that helps people that "don't want to be gay." So he's helping people that want to change, not going out there and pursuing gay people and telling them they should change. BIG difference.
He is a man that follows his convictions about his religious faith, far cry from being prejudiced.
Biased crap
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmOkay, the people that think gay is a disease, should just leave the conversation. You have let your stupidity show, now you are nothing more than a joke.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pmAnd I just want to put it out there, I never voted for Bush.
For all you people who think homosexuality is chosen,couldn't be more wrong.Who would choose a lifestyle that is constantlly being prejudiced againt,thats like chosing your race,which many still face being prejudiced against .I guess that,s a disease too,this is country that's suppose to treat people equally..i.e equal rights amendment.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmPlease......someone.........show me in the King Jame's version .......or any version of the Bible, where it says in RED TYPE that homosexuals will not get into heaven? All of the past Terrestrial Revisionsists of the Bible have given their version of the Bible to modern man. In other words. the modern Bible has be revised and expunged of material that these former counterfeiters have wanted. This homophobic Surgeon General has no place in public office. Mr. Holsinger can no more put aside his personal feelings about homosexuals in the execution of his public office, than "born again rehabilitated homosexuals" can put aside their sexual proclivities in the execution of their marriage.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmCan't you homophobes and religious crackpots state your beliefs without referring to the bible, god, or christ? I can........My family taught me to be kind to animals and humans, and always be logical. Never mentioned gods, devils, christs, nothing.
This is getting like the F**king Inquisition again, burning witches, pagans, astronomers, herbalists, midwives, and psychedelic eaters.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe Bile says that you cannot be a homosexual and a minister,
would it be possible for you to list chapter and verse for this information.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmSo many things are said to be in the bible that i really like to check out the text when someone makes such a quote since the term homosexual has only been around for about the last 100 years.
I must say, as a Republician, our President makes some really, really bad choices. Rummy, Wolfie, The Attorney General and now a homophobe for Surgeon General. Reminds me of the way President Wilson behaved during the Flu pendemic in 1919. In fact, anything George has done pales beside what Wilson did to our freedoms during WW1 - and he was elected as a "keep us out of war" candidate- So much for Democratic ethics as well as those of our current administration. Oh well.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmIf each one of you would have taken the time to write your senators, et al, maybe you could have made a difference in the way these things are going to happen, however, since you've all wasted your breath on the internet in useless ways, I don't really expect any of your opinions to count when it really matters. So I would suggest - If you don't care enough about an issue to actually step up politically in some fashion, you're just typing to watch your fingers move.
If you don't like the world, work to change it, or shut the fuck up.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmAIDS CURES GAYS. YAYYYYYYY
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:38 pmYou poor homophobic closet cases! So now we know Jake*ss and Daryll are both in Ex-Gay ministries!!!! Now it ALL MAKES SENSE, why these wingnuts think that people can "choose" to be gay or straight - because THEY LIE TO THEMSELVES THAT DID!!!!
As for Jake*sses Spitzer study, unfortunately while it was *submitted* to peer review, it didn't hold up well to criticism. Unfortunately it wasn't a "study" as much as an unscientific "survey" of those deeply involved in the brainwashing practices of the ex-gay movement. Most of those that "claimed" to have changed orientation, were WORKING for the ministries, and or closely tied to those that were. And he didn't use STANDARD practices to verify!
That's right all of you closet cases, WE CAN TELL IF YOU ARE GAY!!!!
See a link here to some of the peer review findings for this un-scientific study...
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/02/an-ex-gay-watch-original-video-the-spitzer-study-methodological-flaws-and-abuse-in-anti-gay-politics/
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by Retired Brigadier — June 2, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Only a republican extremist like yourself, can turn a negative critique of your CURRENT leadership, into a *general*attack against all Democrats based on an act ALMOST A CENTURY OLD!!! You almost forgot to mention Hoover, that followed Wilson - you know, the only other President that s*cked so badly people thought he was the WORST PRESIDENT EVER - just like the current one. But I can see how you wouldn't want to focus on the constant and historic *failures* and *ethics* problems of Republicans. It's easier to *fabricate* an attack against Democrats based on b*llsh*t isn't it retired m*r*n?
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pmHats off to this man. Hopefully he can find a cure!
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pmIf there was a cure for stupidity I'd personally inject gays with it...
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pmThe last time I looked the Surgeon General was charged with making Medical decisions for the American people. So what most of you are really saying is that because he has and has held to his convictions he should lose his basic rights as a citizen. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! History has a way of reversing it's beliefs every so often and you may find yourself on the other end of the stick. I remember only 50 years ago when commiting a homosexual act was a felony and carried a 25 year prison term. (California Penal Code) As you have your right to believe what you want without fear of repisal and loss of rights, the same should be afforded to others who don't agree with you. Your bitterness, lack of manners in your language skills and shallowness of thought demonstrate what I believe to be of a greater concern to American people than some person disagreeing with the homosexual agenda.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pmDave,
Dr Holsinger can believe anything he wants, whether it's true or not, but he doesn't have to be the Surgeon General.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pmThe truth is no doctor can cure "gayness" However Homosexuality is a result of culture not just genetics. In fact if all the "Gay" Rights fanatics were not so sure of their convictions, they would see that in fact homosexuality is mostly a result of "culture" not genetics. Also in fact, as unpopular a point as what I am going to say next may be "Homosexuality" is generally not a very healthy lifestyle and it has little to do with acceptance or non acceptance by the the average person. If you do not believe that it is a less healthy lifstyle you may want to do some research on the "real" statistics, not the gay community spin doctored stats. All this said I agree that it is silly to try to cure the individual of "gayness". Although I do not believe that the definate conversion of young men into the homosexual lifestyle by older gay men is acceptable in any way as it is definately not a "better" lifestyle. The whole idea these days that being "gay" is ok is all fine and dandy but it is also misleading as far as the healthy aspect of the reality that the stats prove. Therefore before everyone just "believes" because it appears to be the right thing to do maybe you might want to reavaluate.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pmA few thoughts from an "admittedly" opinionated lurker:
1) Anyone who uses "teh", "u", or any other form of incorrect english (or prevalent language of the forum) gets their post ignored as ignorant. Not that the poster in question is ignorant, but proper use of language IS important to most individuals seeking honest debate. Note: Typo's are understandable in this medium--it's the intentional mis-spellings that get ignored.
2) Anyone who refers to any group or individual in a derogatory, non-respectful manner (i.e. namecalling) gets ignored. See #1.
3) Profanity or pseudo-profanity similarly invalidates an entire post.
I'll stop there with the ignore list, and let's see what I get--what's this? 30 posts? That's more manageable to read. Oh my, 20 of those are from *gasp* conservatives? But I thought they were evil...
In reading these remaining posts, it seems like the "informed" people agree that people can change their orientation. I don't even see any discussion about the nominated Surgeon General. Hmm...everything relevant is apparently off-topic, I guess I have to ignore the whole forum.
Of course, I'm being semi-sarcastic, and as a former member of the bi community ( I live a hetero lifestyle now, although I do agree that you can't change the preferences, just the behavior) I tend to agree with the majority of this forum (in it's entirety, not my mythical ignore list) on the issues of whether a surgeon general is fit for the job if they don't hold with medical science.
I'm sorry, and I usually don't say anything, but as a person who tries to stay informed, I think while everyone's opinions are important, you're not going to get anywhere with your agenda until you learn to debate issues in a civil fashion.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmWe're here.......we're queer......and we even helped win the American Revolutionary War........as we are also doing so in the Civil War in Bagdad. If we die for America in the line of our chosen duty, then we deserve to be respected.......not cured. We also deserve the right to form federally protected civil unions, so that we can participate in the American pursuit of happiness --- no more and no less. Blood is blood. The Office of the Surgeon General should be held by a deserving candidate who keeps religion and other matters of personal choice, out of the office. A person who even tolerates the "religious rehabilitation of homosexuals" is not this person.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm#365
Referencing the military service of homosexuals as credentials for participation in the American dream brings to mind these questions:
Would homosexuals fight, and die, to preserve the right of Christians to worships their Creator?
Would there be a United States of America without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?
Will there continue to be a United States of America without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?
Would you really want a world without Christianity?
The last three questions seem to suggest one additional question…
Would homosexuals have the freedom of lifestyle choice they enjoy in the USA without the influence of Christianity?
Believe it should be noted that no one ever claimed that embracing “diversity†– which seems to be promoted as the greatest good - would keep the “united†in United States of America.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmBeing concurrently Christain and heterosexual seems to imbue your words with "heavy-handed authority".....how nice for you. Let me help you out some:
#1. Being Christain and fair minded, you should be one of the first to recognize that NO CREDENTIALS are necessary for homosexuals to particpate in the American dream. It would axiomatic, right? You have cynically veiled your despise for homosexuals with thoughtful hate.
#2. Homosexuals have fought and died for FREEDOM in this country since it's inception. Shame on you again.
#3. This seems like a trap question, if there ever was one. I will just remind you of the Declaration of INDEPENDANCE.....which holds these inalienable rights as self evident.
#4. This world has suffered from religious delusion long enough.
#5. Homosexuality is not a choice. Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual?
#6. Prejudice and FEAR divide us all.
Please rethink your Christain intellect............it might be harboring "haints"....and such......all products of primodial fear.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm#5. Homosexuality is not a choice. Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual?
Comment by Uncle Arthur — June 2, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Unless you are coerced, you choose with whom you have sex. It is a choice.
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmzxz = simpleton
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmComment by Mistress Z — June 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Distress Z, queen of the thoughtful comment. I may never recover from that one.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pmAnother crony in the Bush crime regime. Just what the doctor ordered.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:16 amWhen I was young I wanted to be straight so bad that I had a few serious relationships with woman. I am grateful that I didn't hurt any of them by going forward to marry them in an attempt to change being gay because of the social pressure, such as family, friends, church and much of our country.
But when looking at nature, many species (primates, some birds etc.) have a small number of its offspring that do not grow up to breed but instead pair up with species of the same gender. It is not normal for everyone to be gay but it appears that it is normal for a small percentage to be.
Perhaps some people apperar to "change" their sexual orientation but it is more a case of them just trying to change their behavior just like a priest can abstane from sex for a time. More and more people are looking at the issue of homsexuality with an honest sociological and scientific perspective versus a CONSERVATIVE Christian perspective. I'm hopeful in time that people will be concerned about real issues that face us as a nation such as crime, a shrinking middle class, and terrorism.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pmJake (#5):
There have been ZERO cases of homosexuality being cured because homosexuality is not a disease.
There have been cases where people have changed their behavior.
There may or may not have been cases where people have changed their orientation--this is not something empirically evident.
Regardless of your views on sexuality and homosexuality, it is inappropriate for the surgeon general to veer so strongly from standard medical practice. Homosexuality has not been considered a disease for decades.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:14 pmHomosexuality is not a choice. Homosexual behavior is a choice. I chose to do it yesterday. And I will choose to do it tonight.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pmThis nomination stinks of Karl Rove. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama will have to vote--in committee--on this nomination. Holsinger is simply more meat for the Republican theocrats. Thankfully, I think we have reached the point where the majority of the electorate recognizes that this disgusting modus operandi is finished. The problem, however, is whether the democrats will ONCE AGAIN serve up gay men and lesbians as sacrificial lambs. Sen. Clinton's discussion of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at the debate this week is hopeful, but she is still not for marriage equality.
The fact is that Holsinger is not qualified to be Surgeon General for the simple reason that he is unwilling to acknowledge the medical facts regarding homosexuality. Would it be wise to hire a Christian Scientist to run Sloan Kettering? It is all about politics for these Bush people--litmus tests and loyalty are more important than competence and honor. It sickens me.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmGeorge Bush is an idiot. You can't cure people who are gay. Sometimes America is far behind the rest of the world.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI don't understand homophobia and heterosexism. I don't understand why some people think they can decide who other people will marry. I don't understand why being gay is a religious issue. But I do understand that all oppression is economic. I understand that homophobia and heterosexism (like racism and sexism) are really about greed. I understand that the people who feed on this avarice are not interested in a fair or just society. They only want what they want, no matter who pays the price, as long as it's not them.
The surgeon general nominee has made his fortune on the backs of those he oppresses.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:45 pmSorry, Randy, I must disagree. MUCH oppression is economic, not all. Homophobia has less to do with economics than it does about sex, gender identity, and different ideas of morality. It is religious because the primary means of oppressing gays and lesbians in Western culture has been by using codified biblical stictures to enforce the prevailing social contracts. Ideas of "purity" and "morality" and the importance of creating offspring has become woven into what became "norms." While placing a value on offspring does have a very definite economic aspect to it, this complicated nexus boils down to the simple fact that many straight men find homosexuality disgusting. And since patriarchy is the tradition, what they believed became law and custom. But thank goodness, times are changing, as much as these paleos try to hold back progress. It is a blessing that the Bushies are so incompetent, or gays and lesbians might have found ourselves much much worse off in 2007.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pmWell, I did'nt think that Mr. George Bush could get anymore ludacris with his heinous descisions but this is definatly the icing on the cake. He claims to be a Catholic but thinks that being "gay" is something that you can "cure". Maybe he should take another look at the bible. And as a President, hmm I don't know if he realizes that the United States is a free country and "gays" can believe anything they want. It seems that he is sending a prejudice message to the rest of the citizens of the United States. It's wrong.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmAnyone who believes that having a sexual attraction to the same sex is a lifestyle "choice" is, by definition, bisexual. It seems that many people who are bisexual believe that everyone is bisexual, which would indeed make it a "choice" whether to be with the same or opposite sex. Those of us who are heterosexual or homosexual know that this is not the case. I always find it amusing when these ultra-conservative, anti-gay, right wingers unwittingly announce to the world that they are bisexual.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pmI am sooo tired of this. These crackpot conservatives, these bloodthirsy neo-cons. The entire federal bureaucracy vetted for the last eight years by dimwitted ideologues like Monica Goodling. I can only hope our democracy survives to Nobember, '08
June 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pmPhysicians these days are taught that the kind of homophobia exhibited by Dr. Holsinger is unacceptable. In fact outspoken statements like his in my organization in Northern California has led to disciplinary actions on those who speak insensitively about fellow physicians or health care providers by judging them to be immoral or unnatural.
His position during the middle ages about those who are born left handed would have been similar. He is a disgrace to our profession and I personally hope his appointment will be rejected. As a matter of fact, I am looking forward to following the hearings. They should be rather entertaining. What a total jerk.
I am surprised that Mr. Bush didn't nominate Dr. Dobson for the position, as he probably doesn't have a real clear idea about the difference between PhDs and MDs anyway.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:31 pmRaphael:
You say "cases where people have changed their orientation" – I say "cured."
June 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pmI have known Dr Holsinger to be a very fair minded individual who is a very astute and competent. Very few persons have as much talent and compassion for all persons. Frankly, Dr. Holsinger is an excellent choice for a very public position.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pmWe have heard some of the same comments about the President, about his compassion, and his kindness. Under his administration we have seen the dismantling of our Republic. It has been sold to the corporate interests in the name of lower taxes and states decentralization. Worse than the Democrats tax/spend mantra, he has spent without taxing, cut muscle rather than meat.
His record at appointing highly qualified individuals to his administration is berift of good choices. If as you say Dr. Holsinger is a good choice, he may be the first in a long line of disastrous Bush appointments.
As a physician, I must reiterate, his views on homosexuality are not concordant with what is taught in medical schools these days. However perhaps it is in line with what the Evangelical Right Wing Christians and Creationists believe, and that is more the litmus test for this administration than a person's competence or qualifications.
I strongly oppose the appointment of such a homophobic person. I remind you that he is speaking about at least 7% of all Americans (and it is in all probability higher than this). Anyone who regards 7% of his fellow citizens as sick and needing to be cured from a condition which is no longer regarded by the American Psychiatric Association, nor even the conservative AMA as an illness, needs to preach in Church, not work as the Attorney General. This was an appointment which pandered to the base. It is red meat for the Conservative Christians, and it is also another in a long line of disasters for our country. Shameful. Just shameful.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pm#392
Since you cite no reference for the percentage of the population that you say might be homosexual, I draw your attention to an article that does cite a reference. The article is linked below.
In fact, the reference is taken from a “friend of the court†brief in the Texas sodomy case. This reference is from footnote 42, according to the linked article, on page 16 of the brief in which 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admit that the most widely accepted survey - National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) - puts the percentage of homosexuals in the population at 2.8% of the males and 1.4% of the females.
The article has additional statistics on this behavior in the population and further analyses of the more popular scientific studies suggesting a genetic cause for homosexuality.
**** Caution ***
Link is to a conservative Christian think tank.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553
June 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSearch on NHSLS
#392
Since you cite no reference for the percentage of the population that you say might be homosexual, I draw your attention to an article that does cite a reference. The article is linked below.
In fact, the reference is taken from a “friend of the court†brief in the Texas sodomy case. This reference is from footnote 42, according to the linked article, on page 16 of the brief in which 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admit that the most widely accepted survey - National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) - puts the percentage of homosexuals in the population at 2.8% of the males and 1.4% of the females.
The article has additional statistics on this behavior in the population and further analyses of the more popular scientific studies suggesting a genetic cause for homosexuality.
**** Caution ***
Link is to a conservative Christian think tank.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553
Search on NHSLS
June 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pmJake, m12, and all you other narrow-minded idiots:
I am a bi-sexual woman. I probably lean a bit more towards men; but I am attracted to women as well. All of my past relationships have been with men. However, for the past 7 years, i've been in a relationship with another woman. Now, if ever in the future I were to end up dating a man again, that WON'T mean I won't be attracted to women. And, it MOST CERTAINLY won't mean i'm "cured" like all you right-winged, bible beating, Jesus praising, *Hallelujah the LORD has HEALED me* people would like to think. You don't CURE homosexuality or bi-sexuality JUST like you don't CURE heterosexuality. Sexuality is what it is.
Here's another thought... IF the bible were written so that it said heterosexuality were a sin, do you think YOU could be cured? Yeah... I didn't think so.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:44 ami'd like to know how he plans to CURE homosexuality..
I didn't even believe this story was true for a couple days, because it sounded so ridiculous.
June 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pmMeet someone who is bisexual, gay, or lesbian.
They will change your life and open your eyes a little more.
You choose to say something is wrong before knowing the person and understanding how they feel.
American society isn't that great these days. I thought we were supposed to be 'United' no matter what.
Love is love and you should never discriminate when it comes to it.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:07 amWhat Holsinger says is that the human body wasn't made to withstand homosexual relations, and there's a mountain of evidence that supports this fact, which should, after all, be common sense. By contrast, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the contrary proposition -- that disease levels among homosexuals are the same as among heterosexuals. I challenge anyone to find a study that shows that. It should have been common sense that the human body couldn't withstand the inhalation of anything other than air for a long period. Either the body parts can withstand the stress or they can't; it's that simple.
Among both homosexuals and smokers, there are exceptions, but common sense should prevail. Both practices should be permitted but with clear warnings by people with influence, such as the surgeon general.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:04 amomg ok this guy is wrong...so is bush.
July 7th, 2007 at 6:06 amIn response to the actual article on this site, Dr. Holsinger did not start a church with the sole purpose of "curing gays". He is part of a church that has a group dedicated to helping people deal with sexual issues. According to the leader of that group, most of the group does not even deal with homosexual issues. They do not advocate an "exodus" from the gay lifestyle either. They will help people who wish to leave the lifestyle. According to the pastor, only 3 members out of about 60 have asked for help in this area, for whatever reason. Dr. Holsinger is not a leader of this group, nor has he ever been.
I have just finished viewing the proceedings on c-span, and it is very sad and troubling that so many people have labelled him homophobic, ultra-conservative whacko based on hearsay and blatant misinformation (even those on the committee). People need to do their research before jumping to conclusions. Let's stop labelling people and start listening to them. I felt that he explained his paper very well to the committee and was very deliberate in giving the details of the circumstances surrounding it. I challenge all of you to watch/listen to the hearings when you get the chance. It is available online at cspan.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm