Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Washington Post: “Dr. Dodgy” Holsinger

Jim Burroway

July 20th, 2007

The Washington Post, in an editorial yesterday, expressed dissatisfaction with the answers that Surgeon General nominee Dr. Holsinger gave at his confirmation hearing:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) did his best to show that the scientific underpinnings of Dr. Holsinger’s report were beyond weak. He pointed out that one physician whose work was featured wrote him to complain of the paper’s “unscientific, biased, and incredibly poor scholarship.” Mr. Kennedy said it “cherry-picks and misuses data”; for instance, much of the information was culled from “emergency room and trauma studies” — hardly a representative sample of gay men.

Dr. Holsinger struck a that-was-then-this-is-now pose. “The paper does not represent where I am today,” he said. Fine. But the question remains: Does Dr. Holsinger still believe that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy? If the answer is yes, he should not be confirmed.

See also:

A Closer Look at Dr. James Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”



Timothy Kincaid
July 20th, 2007 | LINK

The language used by Kennedy sounds awfully familiar, Jim. Could it possibly be that the Senator – or his staff – became familiar with the analysis of a certain BTB writer?

Lynn David
July 20th, 2007 | LINK

Heehee… I had the same thought as Tim about Kennedy’s speech on the issue. I still like the idea you came up with Jim concerning Holsinger, his white paper, professionalism and religion. Your last paragraph in the original piece.

If he was speaking to his church as a learned man, a physician, then why did he misrepresent the observations and science of his references. That is, in effect, lie to his church elders.

And if he was simply trying to deny homosexuality from a spiritual standpoint, why did he find it necessary to misrepresent the observations and science of his references. And would he do the same today – misrepresent science – concering an issue in which science and his religious beliefs deviated?

That paper just queers the pot as far as Holsinger goes. It makes him look unprofessional and prone to obvfuscation when it comes to his motives.

July 22nd, 2007 | LINK

I am a Methodist who was concerned just two years ago about another attack by Holsinger on Gay peopele. He was Chairperson of the Methodist Judicial Council which heard the case of a suspended Pastor from VA who had refused membership to a Gay person.

Holsinger himself wrote the majority opinion which restored the Pastor and created authority where there is none. A judge also on the Council wrote a dissenting opinion explaining how the ruling authored by Holsinger created the authority for the Pastor to withhold membership from whole cloth.

I called James Holsinger. He insisted he wasn’t homophobic, and claimed his ruling had not a shred of homophobia. (Let’s see, if you’re gay you can’t join my church, but that’s not a homophobic positiion?) So to his “that was then, this is now” argument, he had his chance in that Judicical Council ruling just two years ago to effectively refute his earlier paper, and did not. This is one leopard who has not changed his spots.

I’ve asked some questions of church leaders, and here’s the real story. In 1991 a committee on which Holsinger served was about to write a statement supportive of non-promiscuous gay people. Holsinger took it on himself to write his famous paper in an effort to dissuade the committee members from supporting the statement. When they would not change their minds, Holsinger quit the committee in anger.

I have called him again to ask if the report was false. He refused to answer the question, so I take that to be an admission the story is true. I’ve found him arrogant and condescending. A good fit for the Bush Administration team, but not good for America.

August 1st, 2007 | LINK

Dr. Holsinger should be honest & say what he really believes w/o being politically safe. Let me say that my belief as far as sex is that it’s either straight missionary sex or no sex. I’m against men performing sodomy & oral sex on their wives as well. Even if sexual orientation doesn’t change it’s best to change their sexual activities to either straight missionary sex or no sex (celibacy).

I would like to see a law passed against sex change surgeries & they must be abolished. Dr. Holsinger is right in that H&L activities are medically harmful. Homos have higher incidence of VD (VD is the right word not the other 1), emotional problems & lesbians do as well. Sodomy & oral sex carry medical risks, esp. if 1 is promiscous. Impotence is good for homosexuals because it prevents them from dying of diseases caused by their sexual activities. FInally, sexual orientation is a moot point. Dr. Holsinger must say that even if sexual orientation is inborn, it’s about ending the sexual behaviors. A rapist could also be born that way, but we do what we can to prevent or we punish rapist behavior, even if there’s a rapist gene.

August 1st, 2007 | LINK

Finally, I believe that transexuality is an abomination which is worse than homosexuality. Abolishing sex change surgeries is synonymous to abolishing amputatation of healthy limbs of those who have apotemnophilia. If you like animals, then you must support abolishing sex change surgeries, because sex change surgeries were initially done on animals who died cruel deaths.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.