Gay Groups Decry Surgeon General Nominee
So, Bush's nominee for Surgeon General is under fire because 16 years ago he wrote an article stating that sex between gay men is not natural and carries a higher risk of injury or disease. I did not think the veracity of this fact was in question. Does this make him a homophobe or a twisted individual? If the church was debating whether to condemn or condone the use of alcohol and he wrote an article saying that alcoholism (admittedly not a lifestyle choice and notably familially linked) put one at higher risk for medical and health problems would one consider him twisted and alcoholaphobic? I do not see the difference really, and am not sure why one would draw some conclusion about his ability as a medical professional becasue he holds an accurate opinion about the medical risks carried by certain behaviors. How odd.
"Sixteen years ago, he wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.
"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.
Holsinger wrote the paper at a time when the church was one of numerous denominations considering a more open stance on allowing practicing homosexuals to join. It took that step in 1992, saying gays are of "sacred worth" who should be welcomed. Practicing homosexuals are still prohibited from serving in the clergy.
Gilgor, the gay rights activist, called the paper "one twisted piece of work.""
http://www.thebody.com/content/art2282.html
Just so you don't think I am making this up or pulling info out of this air, this is from a gay support website, of course things are couched cautiously (ie., "it has been reported that" ...gay men are at higher risk for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, liver cancer due to alcohol abuse, etc) but it can't escape the fact that there are health risks associated with being a gay man. No judgement being made, just that facts are facts, and people ought not be lambasted for stating the facts, just because one might not like the facts.
So, Bush's nominee for Surgeon General is under fire because 16 years ago he wrote an article stating that sex between gay men is not natural and carries a higher risk of injury or disease. I did not think the veracity of this fact was in question. Does this make him a homophobe or a twisted individual? If the church was debating whether to condemn or condone the use of alcohol and he wrote an article saying that alcoholism (admittedly not a lifestyle choice and notably familially linked) put one at higher risk for medical and health problems would one consider him twisted and alcoholaphobic? I do not see the difference really, and am not sure why one would draw some conclusion about his ability as a medical professional becasue he holds an accurate opinion about the medical risks carried by certain behaviors. How odd.
"Sixteen years ago, he wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.
"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.
Holsinger wrote the paper at a time when the church was one of numerous denominations considering a more open stance on allowing practicing homosexuals to join. It took that step in 1992, saying gays are of "sacred worth" who should be welcomed. Practicing homosexuals are still prohibited from serving in the clergy.
Gilgor, the gay rights activist, called the paper "one twisted piece of work.""
http://www.thebody.com/content/art2282.html
Just so you don't think I am making this up or pulling info out of this air, this is from a gay support website, of course things are couched cautiously (ie., "it has been reported that" ...gay men are at higher risk for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, liver cancer due to alcohol abuse, etc) but it can't escape the fact that there are health risks associated with being a gay man. No judgement being made, just that facts are facts, and people ought not be lambasted for stating the facts, just because one might not like the facts.
posted by madmom at 5:19 PM
5 Comments:
I daresay heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex are every bit as likely to get a sexually transmitted disease. But stating the facts in a way that doesn't condemn homosexuals often creates as much uproar by "Christians" as stating the facts in a way that does condemn homosexuals.
You are missing the point, this has little to do with STD's. I believe the point of the Dr's article is that when men have sex with men, their risks for several health problems are much higher than people who engage in hetero sex. The health risks cited were not only sexual in nature, they included increased incidence of drug use, cancer, alcoholism, etc.
"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.
STDs were specifically addressed in the part of the paper you quoted in your post above. Along with injuries related to anal sex.
Again, I'd be interested to see a study on a statistically significant sample group showing that gay men have a higher incidence of STDs. I work in the healthcare profession and have noted far more straight women seeking treatment for STDs.
As for injuries from anal sex, married couples far and wide incorporate anal sex into their sexual relations. It's not just a gay thing.
At least someone is reading this!!!
Although I can't intelligently remark on the medical study above due to my lack of knowledge in the arena, I think that my take on the above would be this... With regard to the amount of injury due to anal intercourse, the impact may be this: In a homosexual male pair, this is one of the primary methods of copulation, where in the heterosexual world it is more of an item on a larger menu. With that being the case, it would be assumed then that in a male homosexual relationship there would be a significant increase of that particular activity. With the increase in risk with the aforementioned activity tied to the increase of usage of same activity, the amount of injury would increase as well. Seems like the math works. It's irrelevant that the risk of injury is the same in a heterosexual relationship since the actual practice of anal sex in a heterosexual relationship is significantly lower.
Post a Comment
<< Home