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

[TheCursedGatts]

Guys, guys, guys...
































SURPRISE BUTTSECKS!

[MF Perm]

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.

I guess I could get into it with you but I'll empathize since that opinion obviously hasn't gotten you past a blow job. Sorry for you.

But I guess the root of your argument is "don't do anything unnatural."

I suggest you turn off your computer and stop playing video games to start, certainly nature didn't intend for this to happen.

[Correction]

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.

So you don't like blowjobs?

[Enkidu]

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.

Did you even read the paper? Doesn't seem like it.

The author did, in fact, compare male-female and male-male anal sex and heterosexual sex as well. He backed up his assertions with statistics showing A) a higher infection rate among homosexuals and B) higher incidence of anal cancer in homosexuals. Looking at most of his sources, which do you question? Remember, this was written over 10 years ago using sources from around 20 years ago, we've learned a lot since then... Sources that may have been viable then are more then likely nothing of use today.

The point being that he did not make any wild claims, as the OP would suggest, about "gay sex". Rather, his claim was that a rather strange erotic behavior (shoving your fist up someones ass), lead to severe medical problems. Unnecessary? Sure, it didn't really add much to the question at hand, but true none the less. The other sections of the paper are mainly dealing with the complementarity of the male and female body.

The claim people SHOULD be making, however, is that an openness to such issues would lead to safer sexual practices by homosexuals, which I'm sure has happened since this paper was written. However, that was NOT the authors intention with this paper. He was not trying to glorify the concept of homosexuality. He was simply using it as an example as to why male and female are more complementary then male and male. With that said, the author himself said that if proper lubrication is used anal sex is, in most cases, harmless.

If this paper was about the "dangers of homosexuality", I would agree that it is biased and wrong. However the paper is about the complementarity of the male and female body, in which case bringing up homosexual behaviour and the inherent problems of such actions is of importance. If he could show, for example, that without proper lubrication and care homosexual sex is dangerous, his point is made. Because afterall, that's the question his religious cohorts were asking.

I also enjoy all of the Ad Hominem, keep it coming. It makes your point 10x better, similar to the V-Tec sticker on your 1998 Civic that gives you that 20hp boost.

[guartz]

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?

dude reading comprehension 101, I never said that it was unnatural. Ever. I never said homosexuality was unnatural.

[Correction]

dude reading comprehension 101, I never said that it was unnatural. Ever. I never said homosexuality was unnatural.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia.

Necrophilia isn't fucking natural. If you're equating it with homosexuality, you're saying homosexuality is unnatural.

[TheCursedGatts]

^bullshit

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

You all place way too much weight in a term that really is meaningless (Natural)

[MF Perm]

I also enjoy all of the Ad Hominem, keep it coming. It makes your point 10x better, similar to the V-Tec sticker on your 1998 Civic that gives you that 20hp boost.

Funny that you use Ad Hominem in your more civil post at the end, when the point of your first post was to discredit the OP as "stupid." My dick is rock hard at that little irony. But anyways...


I did in fact read the article, and your understanding versus my understanding as such is:

Did you even read the paper? Doesn't seem like it.

The author did, in fact, compare male-female and male-male anal sex and heterosexual sex as well. He backed up his assertions with statistics showing A) a higher infection rate among homosexuals and B) higher incidence of anal cancer in homosexuals. Looking at most of his sources, which do you question? Remember, this was written over 10 years ago using sources from around 20 years ago, we've learned a lot since then... Sources that may have been viable then are more then likely nothing of use today.

It's nice you pointed out that this was a paper from 16 years ago, and certain facts he decided to use in his conclusion were anywhere from 2-15 years old. You don't think he'd use information that fits his case more than the most recent numbers and information. There's facts for you, they're as convenient as you make them. It's good you finished that thought on your own, it'd be a shame if I had to point that out to you.

The point being that he did not make any wild claims, as the OP would suggest, about "gay sex". Rather, his claim was that a rather strange erotic behavior (shoving your fist up someones ass), lead to severe medical problems. Unnecessary? Sure, it didn't really add much to the question at hand, but true none the less. The other sections of the paper are mainly dealing with the complementarity of the male and female body.

His entire article was about male homosexual sex. Every time he speaks about disease and injury it is prefaced with "male homosexuals" or "male homosexual sex." Did you read the article, or skim through it?

This guy basically claims that the majority reason that injury and disease occurs in gay men is through gay anal sex, a point which he repeats throughout. He also makes the assumption that there is perversion and illicit drug use involved in strictly homosexual anal sex. That's not a wild claim? What planet are you from?

Is it necessary to make a point that when men and women have sex they make babies? I don't see the relevance or even need to write a paper making a comparison. This is something that is common knowledge. What he doesn't mention is that the vaginal wall can be torn during sex for several reasons, causing bleeding and increasing the chance of STD's. Biased reporting? I think so. The fact that men and women procreate through sex doesn't mean male homosexuals are any more susceptible to disease and injury through that function than men and women.

The claim people SHOULD be making, however, is that an openness to such issues would lead to safer sexual practices by homosexuals, which I'm sure has happened since this paper was written. However, that was NOT the authors intention with this paper. He was not trying to glorify the concept of homosexuality. He was simply using it as an example as to why male and female are more complementary then male and male. With that said, the author himself said that if proper lubrication is used anal sex is, in most cases, harmless.

Safer sex practices and education should be a general concern, not aimed at male homosexuals. There are a plethora of reasons why, and we all know the results. And again, I question how much you read because he didn't say lubricated anal sex was harmless, he just said there is less tissue ripping and abrasion - nothing about his long list of diseases homosexual men are more apt to succumb to than heterosexuals.

If this paper was about the "dangers of homosexuality", I would agree that it is biased and wrong. However the paper is about the complementarity of the male and female body, in which case bringing up homosexual behaviour and the inherent problems of such actions is of importance. If he could show, for example, that without proper lubrication and care homosexual sex is dangerous, his point is made. Because afterall, that's the question his religious cohorts were asking.

This paper was exactly that. How can you not get that? He's claiming throughout the entire thing that male homosexual anal sex is prone to perverse acts, drug use, disease, and injury. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The paper mentions the complementarity of male and female bodies only in contrast to homosexual sex - the former is not the thesis of this paper. Without proper care and lubrication heterosexual sex can be dangerous, he has no point.

But you're right, this paper was aimed at a certain group and it did its job. That doesn't mean he can't be under scrutiny when he is poised to serve the more diverse and greater public.

By the way, your little "armchair political commentator" comment was cute. The last time I checked in a democracy it was the citizens responsibility to be politically aware and opinionated on any and every issue that effects society. Gosh durn those silly assholes thinking for themselves.

[Fuuko]

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.

Its amazing really you miss the entire point, he is not saying anything about hetero anal sex in what you quoted. He is quoting someone else. Who agrees that force full anal sex can be dangerous, thats why its quoted. It has nothing to do with his opinion at all.

[TheCursedGatts]

INTERNET, SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!

[Tyche]

Man, I just skimmed this thread over in like a minute, I've seen ppl discuss butt sex and fucking dead people. I call this a successful tl:dr

edit: God damn the firefox spellchecker is pwn

[Kuya]

Would someone please shoot Gatts already? Also if you miss and hit guartz instead, that would be fine. As he would certainly enjoy it if someone had sex with his lifeless body.

[Fuuko]

This paper was exactly that. How can you not get that? He's claiming throughout the entire thing that male homosexual anal sex is prone to perverse acts, drug use, disease, and injury. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The paper mentions the complementarity of male and female bodies only in contrast to homosexual sex - the former is not the thesis of this paper. Without proper care and lubrication heterosexual sex can be dangerous, he has no point.

If your asked to do a paper on the possible dangers of male homosexual practices, your paper would obviously focus on *gasp* the possible dangers of male homosexual practices. What else are you going to compare male female sex to, really?

Its stupid he was asked to make the paper on the subject, if they had asked him about hetero sex it would be on the dangers of hetero sex ffs.

[Enkidu]

It's nice you pointed out that this was a paper from 16 years ago, and certain facts he decided to use in his conclusion were anywhere from 2-15 years old. You don't think he'd use information that fits his case more than the most recent numbers and information. There's facts for you, they're as convenient as you make them. It's good you finished that thought on your own, it'd be a shame if I had to point that out to you.

Well then it's your job to discredit his statistics. Have fun.

His entire article was about male homosexual sex. Every time he speaks about disease and injury it is prefaced with "male homosexuals" or "male homosexual sex." Did you read the article, or skim through it?

This guy basically claims that the majority reason that injury and disease occurs in gay men is through gay anal sex, a point which he repeats throughout. He also makes the assumption that there is perversion and illicit drug use involved in strictly homosexual anal sex. That's not a wild claim? What planet are you from?

Again, read the article. Here's one section your missing: "It should be noted that this activity is occasionaly practiced by heterosexual couples and lesbian couples." Which is in regards to the anal fisting... Not to mention that he repeatedly refers to it as "anal eroticism" instead of something like "homosexual activity" or anything else you could easily attribute to a gay basher.

Is it necessary to make a point that when men and women have sex they make babies? I don't see the relevance or even need to write a paper making a comparison. This is something that is common knowledge. What he doesn't mention is that the vaginal wall can be torn during sex for several reasons, causing bleeding and increasing the chance of STD's. Biased reporting? I think so. The fact that men and women procreate through sex doesn't mean male homosexuals are any more susceptible to disease and injury through that function than men and women.

Given the following situation which is more dangerous from your perspective:

1. Intercourse with a femal with no lubrication.
2. Intercourse with a male with no lubrication.

If 2, then his point stands. Remember he's writing to religious people who could not, based on scriptures, clearly identify the complemetarity of male and female from other sexualities. The authors point, read througout the whole paper, was that male and female are "most" complementary and here's why -->.

Safer sex practices and education should be a general concern, not aimed at male homosexuals. There are a plethora of reasons why, and we all know the results. And again, I question how much you read because he didn't say lubricated anal sex was harmless, he just said there is less tissue ripping and abrasion - nothing about his long list of diseases homosexual men are more apt to succumb to than heterosexuals.

"Concensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided their is adequate lubrication."

I agree with the other stuff, my point was just that sexual education was NOT his purpose. If this was a sex-ed paper he probably would have had his medical license taken away and get locked up in the looney bin...

This paper was exactly that. How can you not get that? He's claiming throughout the entire thing that male homosexual anal sex is prone to perverse acts, drug use, disease, and injury. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The paper mentions the complementarity of male and female bodies only in contrast to homosexual sex - the former is not the thesis of this paper. Without proper care and lubrication heterosexual sex can be dangerous, he has no point.

But you're right, this paper was aimed at a certain group and it did its job. That doesn't mean he can't be under scrutiny when he is poised to serve the more diverse and greater public.

It never mentions anal sex as perverse. He never attributes drug use to homosexuals alone. In fact he makes it quite clear that the whole ass-fisting thing was a universal sexual experience for a small fraction of society. And what else should he contrast male-female complementarity? He clearly couldn't use lesbians, since in general they are LESS likely to contract the same or similar diseases.

[guartz]

dude reading comprehension 101, I never said that it was unnatural. Ever. I never said homosexuality was unnatural.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia.

Necrophilia isn't fucking natural. If you're equating it with homosexuality, you're saying homosexuality is unnatural.

oh ya? why is it unnatural? Look, you can't pick your monotheistic morals based on what you think is socially moral, without sounding like a hypocrite.

[Kuya]

dude reading comprehension 101, I never said that it was unnatural. Ever. I never said homosexuality was unnatural.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia.

Necrophilia isn't fucking natural. If you're equating it with homosexuality, you're saying homosexuality is unnatural.

oh ya? why is it unnatural? Look, you can't pick your monotheistic morals based on what you think is socially moral, without sounding like a hypocrite.

See this is the problem with this kind of thinking at times. It tries soo hard to be intellectual, that it ends up being completely idiotic in the end.

[archibaldcrane]

The paper starts out with the premise (even in it's title) that male homosexual sex is abnormal.

Then all he talks about is anal sex, which isn't homosexual specific in the slightest.

None of the dangers he specifies are gay-specific, anal can be harmful regardless of participants.

Anal is more dangerous on average than vaginal intercourse, because of the physiological reasons mentioned, although both can be performed relatively injury free.

The most condescending and offensive thing he says is in the final paragraph.

When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.

Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementary of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself!

If that isn't a fancy way of saying "Silly Faggots, dicks are for chicks", I don't know what is.

[guartz]

See this is the problem with this kind of thinking at times. It tries soo hard to be intellectual, that it ends up being completely idiotic in the end.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...Necromouse.jpg

I tell you what, it is far better then being a hypocrite.

Let me break it down to you, since I have a feeling you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Necrophiliacs are arguably born that way. It's done in nature as much as it's done in human society. (Although, little research is done in that area, understandably.)

The subject of objective morality is somewhat complicated, saying homosexuality is wrong is no different then saying necrophilia is wrong. If your moral codex is derived from the divine or social ethics, in which case, your position on homosexuality should be obvious.

Now, what did we learn about objective morality today class?

[Kuya]

Now, what did we learn about objective morality today class?

That you're still a moron for trying to compare homosexuality with necrophilia.

Edit: You know, through out all of this, you have failed to mention any advantages necrophilia might possess for an animal, specificaly a human.