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.

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.

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.