On Tuesday, the New York Times printed an editorial opposing President Bush’s nominee for attorney surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger, for possible prejudice against gays. It said, in part:
Dr. Holsinger has high-level experience as a health administrator, but there are disturbing indications that he is prejudiced against homosexuals…
What’s troubling is the view he once expressed — and may still hold — on homosexuality, through his activities as a lay leader in the United Methodist Church. On the church’s judicial council, he supported a minister who refused to allow a gay man to join his congregation and argued that a lesbian minister should be removed because church doctrine deems the practice of homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching.†His supporters say these rulings should not be read as his personal views because the council can’t change church doctrine. However, some council members opposed his views, and the bishops later rejected one decision.
His strongest statement on homosexuality can be found in a murky, loosely reasoned paper that he wrote for a church committee in 1991. Titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,†the paper purported to be a scientific and medical review. It argued that gay sex was abnormal on anatomical and physiological grounds and unhealthy, in that anal sex can lead to rectal injuries and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Holsinger did not brand the large number of heterosexual women who engage in anal sex as abnormal, failed to acknowledge the huge burden of disease spread heterosexually and implied that women are more likely than men to avoid injuries with generous lubrication.
The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The committee should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively. Most important, it must determine whether Dr. Holsinger holds these benighted views today. The Senate should not confirm a surgeon general who considers practicing homosexuals abnormal and diseased.
This editorial annoyed me for two reasons. One, it didn’t even mention that responsible gay men use condoms during anal sex or practice monogamy. Two, there was that phrase at the end – “practicing homosexuals.” I was surprised to see this phrase in the New York Times, of all places.
Today the paper prints a letter that at least addresses the latter point.
To the Editor:
I support your views and skepticism concerning President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger. I am questioning the appropriateness of your use of the words “practicing homosexuals.â€
I, for one, never “practiced†homosexuality but am simply gay. I won’t burden you with my story of trying to be a practicing married homosexual and how that failed. In my case, I “practiced†heterosexuality, and the practice never worked.
The term “practicing†seems to try to be in opposition to celibate homosexuals. That does not make those individuals less gay, but it does mean that they are not sexually active with others. Is that what you meant? If so, what does celibacy have to do with it? Would you use also use the term “practicing heterosexuals†in an editorial? If so, what idea would that express?
Jerry Douglas, M.D.
Lafayette, Ind., July 10, 2007
Practice makes perfect!
As a practicing homosexual (After all, practice makes perfect!), I’d like to say that little snide asides like that make me want to be a practicing asshole, too.
Why not just say faggot and mean it, you know? People like to deny things out of context but it’s clear that the context of that phrase really makes it questionable.
Whenever I hear that phrase I always picture some high school kid running out the front door and shouting to his parents, “I won’t be home for dinner tonight. I have homosexual practice.”
Hah!
Dr. Holsinger (full disclosure: I am a distant relative…bonus points if you can find the connection) testified before Congress and said that paper for the Methodist church no longer reflects his views. It was written SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO. The entire country’s understanding of sexuality has shifted RADICALLY since 1990 — just look at any public opinion poll.
And yes, strange editorial. Whenever people use that phrase around me I say, “Oh, I stopped practicing a long time ago, I know how to do it now,” which usually induces convulsions. Try it at your next family reunion.
By the way, I think you mean surgeon general in your first sentence, not attorney general. (Although given this administration, who’d be surprised?) ;-)
Whoops. I’ve fixed it now. Thanks!