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

[Fuuko]

Let's talk about the surgeon general's statement, then. "Gay sex, he warned, can lead to 'lacerations, perforations and deaths' ". First off, he's using "gay sex" as a synonym for "anal sex". He's also assuming that only gay men have anal sex. The two phrases are very obviously different, and there's nothing more dangerous about gay anal sex as opposed to hetero anal sex. Furthermore, "gay" sex doesn't necessarily mean homosexual anal sex. There's a lot of other sexual things gay people can do besides intercourse, and none of them share the presumed dangers of anal sex.

The other bolded section of his statement is similar. He says that "breaching the complementarity of the sexes" results in injuries and diseases, which is similarly inaccurate. As I said above, any chance of injury or disease transmission (NOT disease CAUSATION, which he claims) is equally possible with heterosexual anal sex.

You can make the argument that he simply says "gay sex" because it's more common for gay men to have anal sex than heterosexual women or men, but that doesn't suddenly make the two phrases mean the same thing, particularly in a medical paper where accuracy is paramount.

This is the correct answer. The guy is making an anti-anal sex argument, and using it to insinuate that being gay is unnatural. Of course, anal sex has virtually nothing to do with lesbians, but let's ignore that half of the gay community as well.

The argument that the anus isn't built for sex has little to do with the "naturality" of gay men. It's just retarded.

If you do a search in the paper you don't find the word gay once. He also never refers to anal sex as an act reserved only for homosexual men. It is good propaganda though.

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.

Good job cutting the quote in half, and he is quoting another persons study. The study probably had nothing to do with homosexual sex, he quotes it to show that anal sex is bad if it is force full(Ya know the parts you cut out). He then goes on to quote others studies about that subject with in the homosexual, including the lesbian, community. You either have a 6th grade reading ability, or are purposefully taking things out of context.

[guartz]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

[Elcura]

despite not really knowing what you were talking about (or caring) I still found this thread fun to read.

[Tricen]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

How is it not natural? Two people who care for each other having sex. Which is natural, doesn't matter if it's two guys two girls or a guy and a girl. If you say "Well what if a 12 year old wants to?" then go ahead, common sense will eat you alive.

[archibaldcrane]

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.

Good job cutting the quote in half, and he is quoting another persons study. The study probably had nothing to do with homosexual sex, he quotes it to show that anal sex is bad if it is force full(Ya know the parts you cut out). He then goes on to quote others studies about that subject with in the homosexual, including the lesbian, community. You either have a 6th grade reading ability, or are purposefully taking things out of context.

Wow. My point was that the only time, in the paper, all of which I read, where he mentions hetero anal sex, it's in the context of it being safe and problem free.

Then he spends the rest of the paper talking about all the dangers of homosexual anal sex. I cut out only that part because it was the only part where he refers to hetero anal sex.

[Beckwin]

This guy wrote an academic paper that said "the vagina was meant to receive the penis." What a genius.

However he's arguing that because the anus wasn't designed specifically to receive the penis (I don't think the mouth was either, but hey), only gays who participate in that activity shouldn't be allowed to do ________ (in this case, be pastors in his church). Not only is that an inconsistency (straight anal sex; he offers no evidence of any mechanical differene in the male and female anus), that inconsistency proves he is a homophobe. If he wanted to argue for not allowing gays to be pastors, he should've stuck to a theological argument. This butchering of "science" in a published academic paper isn't indicative of the qualities we should be looking for in a Surgeon General.

"objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted" into the vagina can cause damage as well, especially w/o lubrication and/or dilation. When he quotes a source saying that when properly lubricated there is little danger in anal intercourse for females yet goes on to describe the problems that only (gay) men appear to have, he implies that gay men are ignorant about how to have anal sex or that every case of gay anal sex is akin to rape.

"homophobia" is getting to be an outdated term really. It's not a matter of people being scared of gay men spreading AIDS or being accosted in the gym showers; it's a matter of hatred exactly like racism at this point. Nominating a Surgeon General should not be hard- get suggestions from the AMA or top universities, read their published works and review their work history, and double check to make sure they aren't a wacko/hatemonger.

Maybe the guy is a brilliant physician and could do the job, and maybe he's changed since writing that, but if he wants to be taken seriously he needs to admit his faults in that paper. I wouldn't count on an admission of wrong from a Bush-man, though.

[Priran]

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

Works for joft, not so much for you.

This almost makes me want to redeem my chest touch coupon ( '_')/

[guartz]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

How is it not natural? Two people who care for each other having sex. Which is natural, doesn't matter if it's two guys two girls or a guy and a girl. If you say "Well what if a 12 year old wants to?" then go ahead, common sense will eat you alive.

huh? I never implied that homosexuality is not natural. What's this about 12 year olds? wtf are you rambling about with my alias in the quotes?

[Kuya]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

How is it not natural? Two people who care for each other having sex. Which is natural, doesn't matter if it's two guys two girls or a guy and a girl. If you say "Well what if a 12 year old wants to?" then go ahead, common sense will eat you alive.

huh? I never implied that homosexuality is not natural. What's this about 12 year olds? wtf are you rambling about with my alias in the quotes?

??

So you're either saying necrophilia and homosexuality are natural, or both are unatural, both of which are wrong when it comes to human nature.

[Shade]

Look out, it's Priran 2.0

[guartz]

??

So you're either saying necrophilia and homosexuality are natural, or both are unatural, both of which are wrong when it comes to human nature.

ah you lazy people, can't you just scroll up and read what I said?

"... 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."

[Kuya]

??

So you're either saying necrophilia and homosexuality are natural, or both are unatural, both of which are wrong when it comes to human nature.

ah you lazy people, can't you just scroll up and read what I said?

"... 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."

Homosexuality makes an efficient population controler, and it can be argued to foster kinship amongst same sex animals. Masturbation is a good temporary replacement for sex, as it satisfies inmediate needs, without having to go through the difficulty and possible danger within sex. (not to mention it teaches how to control yourself).

And then we have necrophilia... Kay.

[MF Perm]

Masturbation and homosexuality are shown to occur in other species in nature ( generally in males ) when there is a lack of the opposite sex. There are lizards and rats that cannot change sex, but will revert to cannibalism and homosexuality in the situation of either overpopulation or lack of females.

Masturbation occurs with primate species through puberty and beyond, in the lack of female presence, ability to have sex, and out of boredom.

It is "evolutionary useful" that occurs naturally, and is not a decision:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html




But anyways, the argument would have been nice if it maintained a civil discussion regarding the nominees paper. The paper certainly seems biased, but I don't know if it would lead to anything like him stating that homosexual sex is "dangerous" and homosexuality be made medically illegal. I think that's the alarm that's raising due to the administrations stance on homosexuality, and the record it's shown with it's nominees in the past years ( Gonzalez, Alito, Roberts etc etc ) that follows a very conservative line.

The guy has a history of being "ok" with lesbians but has a biased medical view on homosexual males based on his religious and party affiliation. I think anyone has a right to be concerned with a Bush nominee, especially in this capacity. I see Prirans point, and I think he just thinks it's a rush to judge based solely on a medical paper by a professional just because he's appointed by Bush - which I wish could be true, but this administration has agenda issues and they should be questioned on every level. Bush tried to get one of his close friends Harriet Miers on the bench for christs sake.

Anyways, the way I see it this guy has a certain bias even though he's ok with lesbians. You can't believe everything you hear on either side, as everyone has an agenda, but I don't think insulting someone for making an educated approach on the topic was the right path to have a back and forth conversation on the issue. This thread was doomed before five posts

[Correction]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

Um, YES?!?

Why is this even a fucking question coming out of your semiliterate terminal? I'm sure it's lots of lulz to compare homosexual sex with necrophilia and jerking off, but you're just being dodgy with the word 'natural' here. What exactly is natural? Heterosexual monogamy? Not if biodiversity and propagation of one's own genes are 'natural.' 'More natural' in this case should mean 'two informed adults having sex' versus 'a guy fucking a corpse.' Next you'll be comparing homosexuality to rape...

You're just being facetious and not helping anything by firing off one-sentence meaningless shit into the conversation. Congratulations, your streak is alive.

[Enkidu]

I just read the paper and I don't see much wrong with it as long as you realize who he is talking too. He backs up most of his statements with statistics, especially the parts dealing with male-femal anal sex and male-male anal sex.

Reading the OP again, I can see why he was called stupid. No offense, but the bolded sentences in the first post are just stupid. Not only does it prove the OP did not even take 10 minutes to read a relatively short paper, but that the OP is just another jump-the-gun armchair political commentator.

For instance, this part: "Gay sex, he warned, can lead to "lacerations, perforations and deaths..." Was in conjunction with the act, apparently taking place in the 1970's quite often, of sticking ones ARM UP SOMEONES FUCKING ASS. If that's normal behavior, well then...

All in all, read papers before you jump the proverbial gun.

[guartz]

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

One is consensual?

Homosexuality is more natural then necrophilia because it's consensual?

Um, YES?!?

Why is this even a fucking question coming out of your semiliterate terminal? I'm sure it's lots of lulz to compare homosexual sex with necrophilia and jerking off, but you're just being dodgy with the word 'natural' here. What exactly is natural? Heterosexual monogamy? Not if biodiversity and propagation of one's own genes are 'natural.' 'More natural' in this case should mean 'two informed adults having sex' versus 'a guy fucking a corpse.' Next you'll be comparing homosexuality to rape...

You're just being facetious and not helping anything by firing off one-sentence meaningless shit into the conversation. Congratulations, your streak is alive.

I used the word 'natural' in a sense akin to 'practical'

The way I see it, sex serves 2 tangible purposes.

1) procreation
2) recreation

Now you can spew whatever you want regarding two consenting adults, or about spiritual enlightenment regarding sexual activity, but the hard fact is, fucking corpses, having sex without the intent to procreate, and masturbating, only serve one same purpose.

I'm not judging. If you have an itch, scratch it anyway that pleases you. So long as you do it without harming anybody. And I'm not a hypocrite, if it's okay for one guy to have recreational sex anyway he chooses it, then it's okay for another to have recreational sex with a corpse. I say this because I know it's okay for me to masturbate for recreation.

[MF Perm]

I just read the paper and I don't see much wrong with it as long as you realize who he is talking too. He backs up most of his statements with statistics, especially the parts dealing with male-femal anal sex and male-male anal sex.

Reading the OP again, I can see why he was called stupid. No offense, but the bolded sentences in the first post are just stupid. Not only does it prove the OP did not even take 10 minutes to read a relatively short paper, but that the OP is just another jump-the-gun armchair political commentator.

For instance, this part: "Gay sex, he warned, can lead to "lacerations, perforations and deaths..." Was in conjunction with the act, apparently taking place in the 1970's quite often, of sticking ones ARM UP SOMEONES FUCKING ASS. If that's normal behavior, well then...

All in all, read papers before you jump the proverbial gun.

Jesus christ people are stupid. I find it hard to believe you're actually serious.

Maybe you don't understand the implications of his paper being focused specifically on male homosexual anal sex, and not anal sex in general? And the whole thing about fisting and using drugs to loosen the anus is laughable - where is he getting these statistics from? You'd be surprised at the bias when researching his bilbliography.

The OP has every single ounce of genuine concern about the nominee and this paper in general - it singles out homosexual males and attributes acts and diseases that aren't necessarily standard or 100% true.

The funny thing is you read the paper and you couldn't read between the lines, yet you're so quick to judge someone else based on your inability to comprehend and be objective on a topic.

If a scientifically trained professional writes a biased report on one sexes homosexual behavior while attributing acts that he doesn't know - and bases his opinion off of other biased sources - there is very serious room for concern about him being appointed to the highest medical policy station for our country.

All in all - you're a fucking idiot to judge so quick. Don't ever call someone stupid for forming their own opinion and advertising it for discussion on a public board. I wish you were mature enough to understand half of the OP's argument and my response to you, but I'm assured you'll reply with another O'Reilly quip and insult, but it's ok, we don't expect everyone to aim for a level of intelligence that reaches beyond their own experience.

[Correction]

And I'm not a hypocrite, if it's okay for one guy to have recreational sex anyway he chooses it, then it's okay for another to have recreational sex with a corpse. I say this because I know it's okay for me to masturbate for recreation.

So recreation is unnatural and impractical, and people should be allowed to fuck corpses?

Have you ever actually tried making sense, ever?

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

I used the word 'natural' in a sense akin to 'practical'

The way I see it, sex serves 2 tangible purposes.

1) procreation
2) recreation

Now you can spew whatever you want regarding two consenting adults, or about spiritual enlightenment regarding sexual activity, but the hard fact is, fucking corpses, having sex without the intent to procreate, and masturbating, only serve one same purpose.

I'm not judging. If you have an itch, scratch it anyway that pleases you. So long as you do it without harming anybody. And I'm not a hypocrite, if it's okay for one guy to have recreational sex anyway he chooses it, then it's okay for another to have recreational sex with a corpse. I say this because I know it's okay for me to masturbate for recreation.

Except if that was the stance they were taking they would be focusing even more on banning the pill and condoms, those are much more widely used.

[Dezzimal]

So what? Theres probably a good 20 of these types in congress/house. At least he seems to be representing his viewpoint in a professional manner, rather than other Americans who use their free speech to say things like "God hates fags.". I share his viewpoint as well, don't put your dick where it doesn't belong.