George W. Bush | Health | James Holsinger | News

Surgeon General Nominee Holsinger Has Broad Anti-gay Bias

Earlier this week I briefly mentioned George Bush's nomination for U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. James Holsinger.

JamesholsingerHolsinger's anti-gay bias has come under closer scrutiny in the past couple of days with the release of a paper he wrote in 1991 on the dangers of "anal eroticism" in which he concluded that gay sex is "intuitively" unnatural. Here's a bit of it:

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

The full document is here.

Holsinger also voted to oust a lesbian pastor from the United Methodist Church, the NYT reports:

"As president of the Methodist Church's national Judicial Council, Holsinger voted last year to support a pastor who blocked a gay man from joining a congregation. In 2004, he voted to expel a lesbian from the clergy. The majority of the panel voted to keep the lesbian associate pastor in place, citing questions about whether she had openly declared her homosexuality, but Holsinger dissented."

The congregation Holsinger helped establish, Hope Springs Community Church, as I noted earlier, advocates "curing" gays and lesbians.

Just one more fine nominee from George W. Bush.

Gay Groups Decry Surgeon General Nominee [nyt]
Bush’s Nominee For Surgeon General Wrote Study On The ‘Dangers’ Of ‘Anal Eroticism’ [think progress]
Bush's Surgeon General nom: gay sex is hazardous to your health [pam's house blend]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. For the love of God, when will this fucking reign of idiocy come to an end?!?

    Posted by: Michael W. | Jun 7, 2007 4:22:09 PM

  2. What a fucking tool. I hope the Democrats bar his appointment.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 7, 2007 4:22:13 PM

  3. Evil *and* dumb.

    A fine combination.


    Posted by: Tyler | Jun 7, 2007 4:22:23 PM

  4. Michael W...I agree!...I'll be glad when Bush is out of office and we can, in the words of Gerald Ford, say "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.".

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 7, 2007 4:24:30 PM

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

    Because heterosexual sex NEVER results in injuries or disease.

    And childbirth doesn't rip a woman apart from hole to hole.

    Is it too late for Holsinger's parents to have an abortion?

    Posted by: Jake | Jun 7, 2007 4:30:48 PM

  6. Hoslinger is clearly an old school dick (why is anyone surprised - it's not like Bush needs to score any liberal points) but if his nomination goes through he will only be there for a year or so - how much more damage can he do?

    At this point is it worth the energy of a political showdown between the dems and the President - which in the end will only help his party build up their fundamentalist base (which I am assuming is the point of the nomination in the first place) or is it better to just wearily take note, galvanize our own forces, and concentrate on getting all of the fuckers out next election cycle?

    Posted by: Giovanni | Jun 7, 2007 4:39:46 PM

  7. my opinion, YES, it is worth the energy of the political showdown. Someone needs to let BushCo know that the gig is up and their shit won't be tolerated. Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the plate to do that yet.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 7, 2007 4:45:08 PM

  8. If America does not get off it's collective ass we could end up with Mitt Romney or Rudy G. and another group of facist looney's. We all need to do everything in our power to not let this happen. Write letters. make calls, vote.

    Posted by: Pugzz | Jun 7, 2007 4:53:13 PM


    They NEVER mention Mary Cheney in any of their weak "calls" for protest.

    They're terrified of REAL protest.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 7, 2007 4:58:18 PM

  10. I can disprove this asshole's point in 3 seconds:
    Dude: if you knew anything about audio-video cables, you would know we also have cables called "lesbians", where, believe it or not, the female end connects to another female end!! So there you go, you stupid f*ck! i just wrecked your tidy little argument...

    Posted by: stony_curtis | Jun 7, 2007 5:18:28 PM

  11. What is it with the "opposing side" taking issue with the act of sex itself? Do gay men complain about heterosexual sex or even discuss it as an issue (beyond the fact that it's in our faces 24/7)? I often wonder when people such as Holsinger bring up sexual intercourse if their "points" of interest stem from their own predilections for just the act they deem "inappropriate". What about oral sex? That isn't necessarily "gay" oriented yet isn't "natural" by Holsinger's definition. I could go on and on...

    Someone made a point about not wasting time on this, and I have to agree (a little), in that I wonder if Bush's appointment of Holsinger is a way to divert attention off of major issues. Hmmm...

    Posted by: Cory | Jun 7, 2007 5:40:09 PM

  12. Many moons ago [no pun intended], I organized a panel of gays and lesbians for a Kinsey Institute conference on sexuality. At the cocktail party afterwards, I was struck momentarily speechless for one of the few times in my life when a sweet, matronly, middle-aged woman from somewhere in the far midwest approached me and said, "My husband and I have been experimenting. What do you think of anal intercourse?"

    With asses in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Cyd of Outsports, Steve Gunderson, Rep. Jim Kolbe, Rich Tafel, Kirk Fordham, John Dowless, Michael Guest, David Catania, Charles Francis, Rebecca Maestri, Scott Evertz, Donald Capoccia, David Greer, Scott Huch, Jim McFarland, Carl Schmid, Brian Bennett, and all of the other gay Repugs for helping bring us into this new Age of Enlightenment. In the words of former Sen. Alan Simpson in 2001, "We gather together to honor George Bush and Dick Cheney and celebrate them and their victory, and to honor the gay and lesbian leaders who supported this great team and in every sense made a difference."

    Remember them at Christmas time, won't you?

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 7, 2007 5:45:45 PM

  13. What can we do? I want to write someone. Do we write our senators?

    Posted by: Tiger | Jun 7, 2007 5:46:02 PM

  14. Tiger write and call your Senators. Tell your family and friends to do the same. These idiots rely on our apathy to let their Agenda slide through as 'normal'.

    Posted by: Gary | Jun 7, 2007 5:49:41 PM

  15. The NGLTF issued a press release today opposing his nomination. Read it at:

    Posted by: Tiger | Jun 7, 2007 5:53:50 PM

  16. Someone needs to ask Holsinger why both urine and semen are expelled from the same opening in the penis. That seems most unnatural to moi.

    Posted by: homer | Jun 7, 2007 5:54:18 PM

  17. He was hired by conservative Methodists to write a paper to make the worst (or best from their point of view) case against homosexuality as a "church" issue and this is what he came up with. However, even if we concede that gay sex is unhealthy (and I think anal sex is probably healthy overall despite the dangers) the health argument alone will not reverse the sexual desires or emotional bonds gay men have for each other. Just because gay men are slightly "incompatible" physically for sex does not mean they are emotionally or psychologically incompatible, or that such needs can be mutated into heterosexual ones. However, it's pretty obvious that gay men are quite physically compatible for sex many times over. I think since his argument was put forth over ten years ago the points made have lost any currency in Methodist circles. It should be pointed out that Bush is a Methodist too. His wife went to SMU.

    Posted by: anon ( | Jun 7, 2007 5:55:12 PM

  18. What a buffoon. As if all gay men engage in anal sex. As if they do exclusively. As if *only* gay men engage in anal sex. As if mouths and throats are properly *designed* to have dicks run down them, whether the mouth in question is a male or a female's. Sometimes I wonder: are the Republican base really this ignorant gullible, or do they just willfully shed their intellect in the interest of having 'evidence' to hold up as they holler "so there!" Any port in a storm, right?

    Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 6:05:56 PM

  19. He cites lacerations as one problem of male on male anal sex.

    Uhm, the insertion of a penis and its subsequent thrusting while rubbing against the vagiunal walls also causes lacerations. So men and women shouldn't have sex at all as well? Yeast infections etc are also the results of penial insertion into vaginas.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 7, 2007 6:36:05 PM

  20. anyone who writes a paper about the nuances of anal intercourse between males clearly has a hidden interest in the topic aside from their religious aims. it seems that, in order for all these conservative groups to attack homosexuality, they have to devote more attention to it then even i do. why does the jesus preacher at pride know more about gay porn and sex acts than most of the attendees? me thinks they protest a wee bit too much.

    that aside, it seems that not just the republicans are interested in maintaining shrub's loyalty to the religious right. case in point - sens. pelosi and obey are sponsoring a bill to fund *gasp* abstinence only education. how nice of them.

    Posted by: matt blank | Jun 7, 2007 6:51:42 PM

  21. cunt

    Posted by: becks07 | Jun 7, 2007 7:19:18 PM

  22. This man is a third rate - let's make that forth rate - mind. For any Republicans reading this, why is your party consistently associated with nominees with doctorates and politicians who are intellectually impaired? Yes, Democrats have their drunks, crooks, etc.. but you Republicans sure manage to dig up some morons.

    Posted by: dave | Jun 7, 2007 7:50:00 PM

  23. What??? Where's the kneejerk conservative apologist Cyd to support this douche?

    Posted by: John | Jun 7, 2007 7:56:29 PM

  24. Excellent point, Homer!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 7, 2007 8:29:55 PM

  25. The democrats are pussies and won't stand up to this asshole. They caved in to Bush, they'll cave in on this one too, they're doing nothing for which they were elected.

    Posted by: Bobby | Jun 7, 2007 9:11:22 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Enrique Iglesias Defends His Endowment« «