Bush surgeon general nominee defends views on gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The opposition is not simply coming from Democrats. The article mentions that the American Public Health Association is also urging senators to vote against confirming Holsinger. I’m reluctant to endorse their statement that he “put his political and religious ideology before established medical science”, but it is a major organization.
 
estesbob said:
Should read Looks like the Democrats are now instituting a religious **test **to be be confirmed
Click to expand...
What test? :confused: This is not a uniform issue across the entire religious spectrum. This is not even a core tenant of any of them. Nobody is invoking a higher power. I see no religious test here.
 
Dale_M said:
The opposition is not simply coming from Democrats. The article mentions that the American Public Health Association is also urging senators to vote against confirming Holsinger. I’m reluctant to endorse their statement that he “put his political and religious ideology before established medical science”, but it is a major organization.
Click to expand...
A major organization who opposes him soley because of his views on Homosexuality, Views that are shared by the majortiy of people in this country. This is just another reminder to people that the Party you put in power matters a lot.
 
estesbob said:
Looks like the Democrats are now instituting a religious teas to be be confirmed.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070712/pl_nm/bush_surgeongeneral_dc_10;_ylt=AsHdHZGJGWlYEGE_9TuhtB0E1vAI
Click to expand...
And from CNA

Christian nominee for U.S. Surgeon General denounced by homosexual groups
Mark Tooley of UMAction said Holsinger’s critics seem to want to establish “a new litmus test for public office – a test that would exclude any nominee who is an orthodox Christian with traditional beliefs about sexual ethics.”

“This would appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the provision in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution stipulating that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,’” he noted.

“Dr. Holsinger’s nomination should be evaluated based on his qualifications in the fields of medicine and public health,” said Tooley. “Opposition to any nominee based exclusively on his church activities and traditional Christian beliefs sets a dangerous new precedent.”
Click to expand...
[sign]Welcome to America
No Dogs, No N******s, No Injuns, No Irish,

& NOOO!!! Christians ALLOWED
[/sign]

:rolleyes: I’m in real trouble I fit in 4 out 5 of those Categories:eek:
 
Kaninchen said:
I think religious teas might be a very good thing, certainly some of us are very concerned that our English Breakfast and Assams are perfectly kosher.
Click to expand...
No tea-taxation without representation, religious-tea or otherwise.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
What test? :confused: This is not a uniform issue across the entire religious spectrum. This is not even a core tenant of any of them. Nobody is invoking a higher power. I see no religious test here.
Click to expand...
Sure it is a test. If you write a medical paper that describes using the organ whose sole purpose is expelling solid food waste (urine is sterile) and does not have a “shunt” to permit sexual activity as not suitable for sexual acts and unnatural then you are homophobic. And therefore not worthy of respect.

Also, if you are a member of a religion that teaches homosexual activity is wrong then you also deserve no respect.

This absolutely is a test for public office.

A test I would be proud to fail.
 
rpp said:
Sure it is a test. If you write a medical paper that describes using the organ whose sole purpose is expelling solid food waste (urine is sterile) and does not have a “shunt” to permit sexual activity as not suitable for sexual acts and unnatural then you are homophobic. And therefore not worthy of respect.

Also, if you are a member of a religion that teaches homosexual activity is wrong then you also deserve no respect.

This absolutely is a test for public office.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a test, but not a religious test. Whether someone believes (based on medical evidence) that homosexuality is a medically healthy practice or not, is not inherently “religious” idea. It is, though, inherently a physiological/medical idea, since the reasoning behind the nominee’s position is based on physiology.

In any event, from what I’ve heard, the nominee doesn’t believe in discriminating against homosexuals. For him, it’s purely an issue of which practices are more or less healthy. He’s not using his medical conclusions to, for instance, deny homosexuals health care or hospital visitation rights (via same-sex marriage).
 
Ahimsa said:
Yes, it’s a test, but not a religious test. Whether someone believes (based on medical evidence) that homosexuality is a medically healthy practice or not, is not inherently “religious” idea. It is, though, inherently a physiological/medical idea, since the reasoning behind the nominee’s position is based on physiology.

In any event, from what I’ve heard, the nominee doesn’t believe in discriminating against homosexuals. For him, it’s purely an issue of which practices are more or less healthy. He’s not using his medical conclusions to, for instance, deny homosexuals health care or hospital visitation rights (via same-sex marriage).
Click to expand...
He is alos being ooposed becuase he opposed ordination of Homosexual Minister in the Methodist Church,

Sounds like a religious test to me/
 
Ahimsa said:
Yes, it’s a test, but not a religious test. Whether someone believes (based on medical evidence) that homosexuality is a medically healthy practice or not, is not inherently “religious” idea. It is, though, inherently a physiological/medical idea, since the reasoning behind the nominee’s position is based on physiology.

In any event, from what I’ve heard, the nominee doesn’t believe in discriminating against homosexuals. For him, it’s purely an issue of which practices are more or less healthy. He’s not using his medical conclusions to, for instance, deny homosexuals health care or hospital visitation rights (via same-sex marriage).
Click to expand...
It is a religious test because his critics are citing his religious beliefs.
 
Apparently in today’s hearings, Dr. Holsinger repudiated his controversial 1991 paper Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality, saying that it no longer represents his views.
guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,-6775198,00.html

I don’t know if that will be enough to appease all the people who oppose his nomination, but it might be enough to win over senators who were uncomfortable with it.

Does anyone know if it is routine for a Surgeon General to continue to serve under the next president? I am thinking that with only 18 months left of the Bush presidency, a nominee may wonder whether the post is worth the fight.
 
Dale_M said:
The opposition is not simply coming from Democrats. The article mentions that the American Public Health Association is also urging senators to vote against confirming Holsinger. I’m reluctant to endorse their statement that he “put his political and religious ideology before established medical science”, but it is a major organization.
Click to expand...
I read the paper. He was essentially just stating facts throughout - it was very clinical and eye-opening but none of it disputable. I’d say Sen Kennedy and gay groups are injecting ***their ***politics into their assessment of this nominee not the other way around.
 
Holsinger offered exhaustive anatomical details to describe anal sex as unnatural.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, the committee’s chairman, said in a statement Holsinger’s paper was “ideological and decidedly not an accurate analysis of the science then available on homosexuality.”
“The misuse of science gravely concerns me,” Kennedy said.
Click to expand...
It’s astounding the mental gymnastics and gross denial required to make a statement like Senator Kennedy made here. What new science has emerged to provide us with proof that the digestive system is now meant to be used for sexual intercourse? Did I miss that paper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top