Bush's new Surgeon General nominee denies being anti-gay

[Zosi]

Wow, you're right, I must have imagined this line:

male-female 'reproductive systems are fully complementary' because 'anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis.'

I agree with his statement that the vagina is anatomically designed to receive the penis. I don't think anyone's really doubting that. What I take issue with is that you took that statement and turned it into "Ok, then why aren't you explaining to the surgeon general how evolutionarily useful homosexuality is?". It's a rather badly done straw man argument. Nobody has said that homosexuality was evolutionarily useful before you posted, and nobody has since. We've said that it's evolutionarily irrelevant, to which you haven't offered any response besides your usual name-calling.

It was a statement submitted to a church, not published in a scientific journal. Go figure?

Well, I guess that makes it ok to misuse words to make a paper talking about the dangers of anal sex into a paper bashing gays for medical reasons.

Edited again because I fail at fixing quotes.

[joft]

And speaking of wacky logic, disagreeing with your opinion that his comments were not wrong is a double negative, indicating his comments were wrong.

I just realized that your point was a little dumber than I assumed it was at first. You cherry picked one part of his paper and said the health community must be stupid for disagreeing with that, when it's quite obvious to any reasonable observer that we're talking about the more inflammatory parts of his paper (especially because I actually used the word "inflammatory"). If you're going to try to make a point by saying that I meant the majority disagreed with everything he said, then you must be pretty desperate for points to make.

Even still, you didn't cherry pick very well, because I would venture most scientists would still disagree with the statement you chose. Our gonads were not "designed," remember? If you want to talk about non-teleological evolutionary functions, fine, but it's obvious Holsinger doesn't, and I'm sure most scientists would take issue with that.

[archibaldcrane]

The main reason this is offensive can be found clearly in the title: "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality".

All he talks about is anal sex in the article, but he acts as though anal sex is male homosexual exclusive, downplaying any instances in the paper where he acknowledges that hetero people engage in anal sex.

In addition to infection, trauma and tumors are the primary problems related to the anorectum in homosexual men. "Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse." (Bush, 1986)

You see, straight people have anal sex too, but they are -way- better at it than gay men! This is hilarious pseudo-science at it's finest.

[Priran]

I didn't have to do any work because I knew this already. You can try looking up medical journals or publications, for example, the APA stopped classifying homosexuality as an abnormal behavior a long time ago. Any physician will tell you heterosexual behaviors (including heterosexual anal sex) are just as dangerous. Holsinger is a conservative religious nutcase who tries to bend science to fit his previously chosen worldview, rather than letting science change his worldview as it advances.

All of which is perfectly unrelated (unless psychiatrists have started dabbling in evolutionary biology).

And speaking of wacky logic, disagreeing with your opinion that his comments were not wrong is a double negative, indicating his comments were wrong.

Edited before you posted, hey-oh.

I agree with your second sentence, except that's not what I did. I understand the theory quite well, having read quite a bit about evolution. The way that I used the theory, to show that individuals are not concerned with their evolutionary success, is one of the main thrusts of the theory-- the other being inter-gene conflict (certain genes in one organisms DNA may be at odds with each other and "fight" over which will be expressed).

If an individual isn't concerned with his evolutionary success, then how is being gay trivial? They're not going to go out of their way to insure their success, and it's not going to happen naturally. All they can do is adopt or artificially inseminate, and in that case, at least one of them hits a dead end.

You were arguing that I'm stupid because apparently I don't realize homosexuality is bad or unnatural or something like that, as evidenced by the supposed lack of evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality. Unless you go back and edit all your posts, I'm pretty sure anyone can see that's exactly what you were trying to do.

Yeah context is fun isn't it? I'm arguing that the surgeon general electis catching shit for nothing, and mountains are being made out of molehills.

What I take issue with is that you took that statement and turned it into "Ok, then why aren't you explaining to the surgeon general how evolutionarily useful homosexuality is?".

What the fuck is it with you people and context. That was in response to joft saying "oh ho ho i so samrt".

He singled out a paragraph about the structures of the reproductive organs and the anus, in the same quote he bolded and singled out things he thought were "ridiculous" and outrageous. But oh no, he never said literally the word "evolution" so here comes

straw man argument

to save the day!

You know, to be honest, I found the "propaganda" deal less irritating, so if you're gonna stick to your improperly used phrases, I'd appreciate it if you used that instead.

Well, I guess that makes it ok to misuse words to make a paper talking about the dangers of anal sex into a paper bashing gays for medical reasons.

SARWT MEN ARUGMANT

Wow, it's like an instant absolutely valid point.

[Priran]

I just realized that your point was a little dumber than I assumed it was at first. You cherry picked one part of his paper and said the health community must be stupid for disagreeing with that, when it's quite obvious to any reasonable observer that we're talking about the more inflammatory parts of his paper (especially because I actually used the word "inflammatory"). If you're going to try to make a point by saying that I meant the majority disagreed with everything he said, then you must be pretty desperate for points to make.

Correction, I cherry picked two parts of what he said. This, I suppose, is the part where you pretend you didn't do the same?

Even still, you didn't cherry pick very well, because I would venture most scientists would still disagree with the statement you chose. Our gonads were not "designed," remember? If you want to talk about non-teleological evolutionary functions, fine, but it's obvious Holsinger doesn't, and I'm sure most scientists would take issue with that.

Here come semantics to save the day.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm arguing that the surgeon general electis catching shit for nothing, and mountains are being made out of molehills.

This paper is evidence that the person nominated for the Surgeon General of the country does not appear to have qualms with telling his audience what they want to hear, nor does he seem to have issue with cherry-picking stats and research to support his painting of homosexuality as unnatural.

These are bad things, and he should be catching shit about them.

[Priran]

I'm arguing that the surgeon general electis catching shit for nothing, and mountains are being made out of molehills.

This paper is evidence that the person nominated for the Surgeon General of the country does not appear to have qualms with telling his audience what they want to hear, nor does he seem to have issue with cherry-picking stats and research to support his painting of homosexuality as unnatural.

You're overestimating how much power a surgeon general actually has. He's basically just a spokesman.

[joft]

All of which is perfectly unrelated (unless psychiatrists have started dabbling in evolutionary biology).

I said, "For example," and actually psychiatrists have M.D. degrees, making them physicians, meaning they are relevant. This thread was following the line that most professionals would disagree with you and say Holsinger's comments were wrong and inflammatory. It was not a matter of evolutionary biology, which, by the way, psychiatrists most certainly do "dabble" in. Have you ever heard of the "nature versus nurture" debate? The "nurture" here is evolutionary biology. The APA manual is full of technical information about genetic causes of mental illnesses. My point stands: the scientific/medical establishment does not consider homosexuality abnormal or inherently dangerous.

If an individual isn't concerned with his evolutionary success, then how is being gay trivial? They're not going to go out of their way to insure their success, and it's not going to happen naturally. All they can do is adopt or artificially inseminate, and in that case, at least one of them hits a dead end.

Individuals are not concerned with evolutionary success, thus homosexuals are not haunted by their inability to conceive through anal sex. Your original point, once again, was that there's apparently something bad or wrong about homosexuality because it's supposedly evolutionarily useless. Aside from the fact that many scientists have posited many different evolutionary functions for homosexuality, the point remains that being evolutionarily useful is not a criterion by which any physician should judge sexual behaviors, nor do most humans engaging in sexual acts care about how evolutionarily useful their sexual acts are. Does this answer your question?

[quote:28c8e]You were arguing that I'm stupid because apparently I don't realize homosexuality is bad or unnatural or something like that, as evidenced by the supposed lack of evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality. Unless you go back and edit all your posts, I'm pretty sure anyone can see that's exactly what you were trying to do.

Yeah context is fun isn't it? I'm arguing that the surgeon general electis catching shit for nothing, and mountains are being made out of molehills.[/quote:28c8e]Your initial post was nothing but an insult directed at me which didn't address anything about the OP. The moment you started addressing the OP the first thing you said was (once again...) that homosexuality was not evolutionarily useful, and this somehow proved that I was stupid. And, as archibald said, this isn't a molehill issue.

Correction, I cherry picked two parts of what he said. This, I suppose, is the part where you pretend you didn't do the same?

Your cherry-picking was done with the intention to make a moot point that the scientific community either doesn't disagree with Holsinger or is stupid for disagreeing with him because he might have made a few comments somewhere in that paper which were true, and apparently if you disagree with someone it means you disagree with every single thing they say. My cherry-picking was to display the evidence that this guy is a crazy homophobe, which he is.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm arguing that the surgeon general electis catching shit for nothing, and mountains are being made out of molehills.

This paper is evidence that the person nominated for the Surgeon General of the country does not appear to have qualms with telling his audience what they want to hear, nor does he seem to have issue with cherry-picking stats and research to support his painting of homosexuality as unnatural.

You're overestimating how much power a surgeon general actually has. He's basically just a spokesman.

He's the spokesman that lawmakers get to point to when they want to back up their policies about medicine with supposed research. He's arguably the most important and influential medical doctor in the country when in office. If he's so unimportant, then why do you give such a shit about defending him?

[guartz]

why is this an argument?

as far as the species are concerned, homosexuality fails. It's that simple.

"Sperm banks and artificial insemination have made it possible for people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce the "traditional" way to have children that share at least some of their DNA."

How is this relevant? you still need a woman for gestation and birth. If two dudes want a child they gotta adopt one, or one of them has to insert some semen into a vagina. (one way or another)

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia. As any argument that can defend importance of homosexuality, can also defend the other two.

The real issue is people or groups who discriminate people singularly on the fact that they are homosexuals, and that's fucked up.

[Zosi]

It's nice that you can copy my own criticism of you and attempt to apply it to my own posts.

What the fuck is it with you people and context. That was in response to joft saying "oh ho ho i so samrt".

You seem to have lost track of the chain of conversation regarding this. Here, I'll summarize it for you:

1) Surgeon General nominee: "male-female 'reproductive systems are fully complementary' because 'anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis.'"
2) Priran: "Are you stupid?"
3) Joft: "I'm easily smarter than you"
4) Priran: "Really? Then prove why homosexuality is evolutionarily useful!"
5) Zosi: "Homosexuality evolutionary usefulness is irrelevant, for X reasons"
6) Priran: "That's unrelated bullshit"
7) Zosi: "It's unrelated to what the SG said, but you brought it up"
8) Priran: *references line 1) above*
9) Zosi: That's a straw man argument, that statement doesn't say anything about whether homosexuality is evolutionarily useful"
10) Priran: "Your response is a straw man argument!"

Since you seem to be confused, I'll explain. You are the one who brought up evolution in this topic. Not the surgeon general nominee. You justify it by referring to a line that had nothing to do with evolution. That is a straw man argument, because the Surgeon General nominee never said that homosexuality was evolutionarily useful or useless. It's somewhat ridiculous to think that he would, considering that he's writing for an audience that believes in divine creation.

Now, for my response to be a straw man argument, I'd have to be attacking something that you never actually said. However, I'm attacking the relevance of evolutionary usefulness to this thread, which is something you introduced (as statement 4 above) and attempted to justify (as statement 8 above). If you're going to attempt to throw my own arguments back at me, at least do a better job.

Well, I guess that makes it ok to misuse words to make a paper talking about the dangers of anal sex into a paper bashing gays for medical reasons.

SARWT MEN ARUGMANT

Wow, it's like an instant absolutely valid point.

No straw man here. The subject of the paper is the dangers of anal sex. However, it's presented as a paper that proves that "gay" sex is more dangerous than "straight" sex.

[joft]

why is this an argument?

as far as the species are concerned, homosexuality fails. It's that simple.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia. As any argument that can defend importance of homosexuality, can also defend the other two.

Your first point was addressed at length in this thread already. Basically, "as far as the species are concerned" fails as an argument.

Your second point is 1/3rd wrong. Masturbation and homosexuality are more "natural" than necrophilia; or rather, necrophilia is abnormal, masturbation and homosexuality are perfectly normal.

[guartz]

why is this an argument?

as far as the species are concerned, homosexuality fails. It's that simple.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia. As any argument that can defend importance of homosexuality, can also defend the other two.

Your first point was addressed at length in this thread already. Basically, "as far as the species are concerned" fails as an argument.

Your second point is 1/3rd wrong. Masturbation and homosexuality are more "natural" than necrophilia; or rather, necrophilia is abnormal, masturbation and homosexuality are perfectly normal.

I just didn't understand what you guys were arguing about, thats all.

heh, okay. Why is homosexuality more natural then necrophilia?

[Priran]

I said, "For example," and actually psychiatrists have M.D. degrees, making them physicians, meaning they are relevant. This thread was following the line that most professionals would disagree with you and say Holsinger's comments were wrong and inflammatory. It was not a matter of evolutionary biology, which, by the way, psychiatrists most certainly do "dabble" in. Have you ever heard of the "nature versus nurture" debate? The "nurture" here is evolutionary biology. The APA manual is full of technical information about genetic causes of mental illnesses. My point stands: the scientific/medical establishment does not consider homosexuality abnormal or inherently dangerous.

Wow, and go figure, neither do I!

I can't honestly say I'd trust a psychiatrist with brain surgery but fuck, they're all physicians right? And protip: when I said dabble, I wasn't being literal.

Individuals are not concerned with evolutionary success, thus homosexuals are not haunted by their inability to conceive through anal sex. Your original point, once again, was that there's apparently something bad or wrong about homosexuality because it's supposedly evolutionarily useless. Aside from the fact that many scientists have posited many different evolutionary functions for homosexuality, the point remains that being evolutionarily useful is not a criterion by which any physician should judge sexual behaviors, nor do most humans engaging in sexual acts care about how evolutionarily useful their sexual acts are. Does this answer your question?

Homosexuality occurs in a tiny, minuscule fraction of all known species, and in most of these species, the animals have heterosexual relationships anyway. Humans are fun because most of them are monogamous, but that's a whole different argument.

And, as archibald said, this isn't a molehill issue.

Really, it isn't? Oh boy golly you just might be right, I mean the surgeon general puts all those stickers on cigarettes, his job must be really important and powerful right?

My cherry-picking was to display the evidence that this guy is a crazy homophobe, which he is.

Cherry picking from arguments to make your own is almost as fun as it is simplistic and illogical.

[joft]

I'm easily smarter than you, but that has no relevance to this thread.

I want to apologize for this remark. This thread has gotten off totally on the wrong foot. I suppose it's because I continually underestimate the importance of being contrarian in video game web culture, but I wasn't expecting the first reply to be "Joft you're stupid," or the entire thread to launch into an argument that the basic assumption of the OP is wrong- rather than discussing the questions put forth in the OP.

Priran, I regret responding, in kind, to your insult. I really wish our sub-culture here wasn't so obsessed with disagreement for the sake of disagreeing, or that we could at least be a bit more civil about it. I'm getting tired of arguing point-by-point, and I've wasted at least 3 hours here already, so I'm done.

[Correction]

heh, okay. Why is homosexuality more natural then necrophilia?

One is consensual?

[Shade]

heh, okay. Why is homosexuality more natural then necrophilia?

One is consensual?

And doesn't involve a -corpse-?

[Priran]

You seem to have lost track of the chain of conversation regarding this. Here, I'll summarize it for you:

1) Joft: HE SAID PLUMING PARTS LOL
2) Priran: "Are you stupid?"
3) Joft: "My mommy says I'm not"
4) Priran: "Really? Then prove the surgeon general wrong."
5) Zosi: "Homosexuality's evolutionary usefulness is irrelevant because MODERN MEDICINE can cheat the system and give gays kids that at best contain only one partner's genes."
6) Priran: "That's unrelated bullshit"
7) Zosi: "It's unrelated to what the SG said, but you brought it up"
8) Priran: *references line 1) above*
9) Zosi: "I like the phrase straw man argument."
10) Priran: "I need scissors. 61!"

Ficksed.

Since you seem to be confused, I'll explain. You are the one who brought up evolution in this topic. Not the surgeon general nominee. You justify it by referring to a line that had nothing to do with evolution. That is a straw man argument, because the Surgeon General nominee never said that homosexuality was evolutionarily useful or useless. It's somewhat ridiculous to think that he would, considering that he's writing for an audience that believes in divine creation.

The surgeon general said, plain and simple, that men are made to pair with women. He didn't mention evolution because he was writing to a church, no shit?

Now, for my response to be a straw man argument, I'd have to be attacking something that you never actually said.

that makes it ok to misuse words to make a paper talking about the dangers of anal sex into a paper bashing gays

SHAZAM.

He's the spokesman that lawmakers get to point to when they want to back up their policies about medicine with supposed research. He's arguably the most important and influential medical doctor in the country when in office.

You could certainly argue that, considering he's not even his own boss. And lots of surgeon generals have ideas they'd like to enact that never see daylight.

[Zosi]

I'm done too, it's degenerated into nothing but Priran calling names and insulting arguments that he doesn't understand.

[archibaldcrane]

Another thread successfully trolled into oblivion.