Proud Homophobe on BP Spill Team

[poolerboy]

Proud Homophobe also writes...

Post-Script October 17, 2003: The homosexual movement is now campaigning against blood drives, because blood banks do not accept blood from men who have engaged in homosexual acts. This is ``discrimination'', the campaigners say (see, for example, Washington University Student Life October 17, 2003). Of course it is discrimination; the blood banks are discriminating against blood at risk of contamination with HIV, which would give the recipients the fatal disease AIDS. Intravenous drug abusers are also rejected as donors, for the same reason. People who have lived in the United Kingdom are now rejected because they are at (much lesser) risk for CJD. Some discrimination is wrong. Racial discrimination, for example, is almost invariably unethical (and generally illegal) because race is unrelated to the ability to do a job, study, fulfill a contract, or almost any other activity of daily life. Some discrimination, however, is both justified and necessary. For example, it is quite appropriate for a basketball team to discriminate among applicants on the basis of height, agility and stamina, for a prospective patient to discriminate among doctors on the basis of their academic qualifications and past record of practice, and for a blood bank to discriminate among prospective donors on the basis of the statistical risk that their blood is contaminated with infectious diseases. In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS, or to kill patients who need transfusions by making it impossible for blood banks to collect blood. Or, perhaps, this was just a joke. But I think not.

It is true, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that out of all the HIV cases in the U.S., approximately 68% of men who have sex with men (MSM) make up a portion of that pie.

Though it is also true that African-Americans make up more than half of said HIV cases.

...and recall they are only ~12% of the population.


And 64% of females with HIV are black

...and recall they are only ~6% of the population.


Why not reject blacks as well? Oh wait, that would be discrimination.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Well, I posted too soon, as he's out now.

I don't know enough to know if his expertise in physics was so unique that he was worth it. But I do really question his scientific and practical judgment based on what he wrote about gays.

I would like to know in what way the passage you quoted from his pro-homophobia paper contradicts science. He acknowledges it's not a choice. Are there passages in the paper that you didn't quote wherein he rejects scientific understanding? I disagree with him that homosexuality is wrong, but I cannot base my disagreement on science if his argument doesn't rely on its rejection. And it doesn't seem to.

Plus, as I've said, LGBT issues have nothing to do whatsoever with the current problem in the gulf. If he watched Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow every night, would you say the same thing? What if he supported the Constitution Party? You get the idea. Saying that it maked you question his "scientific and practical judgment [as it pertains to oil in the gulf] based on what he wrote about gays" is essentially another way of saying "he disagrees with me on something I find important and therefore I don't like him."

What if he was an avid supporter of the Democratic Party, and Republicans said that, as a result of that, they think he should be booted? Would you accept their reasoning that his position on political issues of import like gun control and the death penalty make them question his scientific and practical judgment? I know I wouldn't, and I don't think you would. What you're doing is essentially the same thing.

 

[poolerboy]

I would like to know in what way the passage you quoted from his pro-homophobia paper contradicts science. He acknowledges it's not a choice. Are there passages in the paper that you didn't quote wherein he rejects scientific understanding? I disagree with him that homosexuality is wrong, but I cannot base my disagreement on science if his argument doesn't rely on its rejection. And it doesn't seem to.

Try the part where he calls it "unnatural" for starters.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Well this is interesting.

Jonathan I. Katz is one of a few scientists appointed by the Obama administration to work on the BP oil spill.

Katz's other distinction that he is an out and proud homophobe, who wrote:



Now I'm a distinctly practical gay man, and in part feel like if this is the physicist who has the know-how, I can hardly object to his appointment. And yet he's so over the top it's hard to reconcile, and I'm left wondering if this is really the only personal of his caliber available.

I think it is important to know who he is, but let's not forget that almost half of the Congressmembers in office are homophobic, being that they are from the infamous homophobic and bigoted party.

 

[SoulSearcher]

And btw, he's been taken OFF the task force on the oil spill:

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5208

 

[NotThatCreative]

Try the part where he calls it "unnatural" for starters.

Working with the full paragraph:

What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.

Those cursed with unnatural sexual desires. He then goes on to mention desires he views as similar such as adulterous desires. You focused on that one word, unnatural, while ignoring the fact that only two words before is the word "cursed" which clearly is not a sign of choice. It is our choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Being gay isn't, but engaging in such behavior is. We don't know what "causes" homosexuality, but it may be nurture just as much as nature. Science doesn't tell us yet, we only know that it's not a choice.

As far as the HIV/AIDS thing, the situations are not the same. People aren't getting HIV/AIDS by virtue of being black. They are, however, getting it as a result of unsafe sex. Most of the black people who have HIV/AIDS in this country no doubt do because of needle sharing or unsafe sex. If you're a heroin addict, your blood is also not wanted (as he pointed out in the text you quoted).

Katz is an intolerant asshole, but he is not scientifically inaccurate.

 

[NickCole]

ObamaCo keeps outdoing themselves.

Obama didn't help with Prop 8, they won't repeal DADT or DOMA, but a top scientist who can help with the oil spill gets canned because he's homophobic?

This is just retarded.

If Obama did the right thing for gay rights, he wouldn't have to give in to silly PC nonsense like this.

But whatever. It's just another diversion from Obama's failure in dealing with the oil spill.

 

[MercuryJones]

Katz is an intolerant asshole, but he is not scientifically inaccurate.

I must disagree. Homosexuality is not an unnatural desire. Regardless of what he thinks of acting on the desire, the desire itself is not unnatural.

His assholism just takes it an runs from there.

 

[NotThatCreative]

I must disagree. Homosexuality is not an unnatural desire. Regardless of what he thinks of acting on the desire, the desire itself is not unnatural.

His assholism just takes it an runs from there.

Just like poolerboy your argument regarding his scientific inaccuracy comes entirely from that one word. I'll sum up my two responses two it.

One: science tells us homosexual desires aren't a choice, we have not yet been able to make a determination on nature vs nurture. So it may well be "unnatural". We don't know. The idea that either it's natural or it's a choice is a false dichotomy. It can be unnatural and still not a choice.

Two: look at the other desires Katz lists with it. Adulterous desire. Most people of both sexes feel it, he wrote. He's obviously not saying that adulterous desire is a choice. Nor is he saying homosexual desire is a choice. Rather, acting on either desire is.

 

[MercuryJones]

One: science tells us homosexual desires aren't a choice, we have not yet been able to make a determination on nature vs nurture. So it may well be "unnatural". We don't know. The idea that either it's natural or it's a choice is a false dichotomy. It can be unnatural and still not a choice.

I understand what you've written here, but disagree. The word "unnatural" stands on its own, and whether it implies choice or not, it is scientifically inaccurate.

Two: look at the other desires Katz lists with it. Adulterous desire. Most people of both sexes feel it, he wrote. He's obviously not saying that adulterous desire is a choice. Nor is he saying homosexual desire is a choice. Rather, acting on either desire is.

And I understand what you've written here as well. But to describe homosexual desire as unnatural is scientifically unsound.

I'd go even further and say that his conclusion about how gays could be expected to simply not act on that desire presents another level of his poverty of reasoning. It's not a reasonable thing to expect humans to go their lives without meaningful intimate contact - you'd have to be ignorant of humanity to say so.

 

[poolerboy]

Working with the full paragraph:



Those cursed with unnatural sexual desires.

Were you under the impression he thought of homosexuality as a blessing?

 

[NotThatCreative]

I understand what you've written here, but disagree. The word "unnatural" stands on its own, and whether it implies choice or not, it is scientifically inaccurate.

And I understand what you've written here as well. But to describe homosexual desire as unnatural is scientifically unsound.

So pretty much, your argument is he's an idiot who can't be trusted with physics because he had poor word choice in an essay he wrote.

Aside from that, I point out once again, it is not scientifically inaccurate to describe homosexuality as unnatural. Science has not yet determined the cause of homosexuality. All it has determined is that it's not a choice. You may think it's natural, and good on you for that. But scientifically that determination has not been made.

I'd go even further and say that his conclusion about how gays could be expected to simply not act on that desire presents another level of his poverty of reasoning. It's not a reasonable thing to expect humans to go their lives without meaningful intimate contact - you'd have to be ignorant of humanity to say so.

We repress desires all the time, sexual and otherwise. Because it's just too damned hard is not enough reason to attack him as an idiot, and it certainly isn't enough to justify the stance that he should be pulled from the team (as he eventually was).

Were you under the impression he thought of homosexuality as a blessing?

I don't care what he thinks of it as. The key is that he is does not contradict science. I said I think he's a bigoted asshole, but what has that got to do with the job to which he'd been assigned? Nothing.

JonesHere has tried to make the argument that he is unfit for a job as a physicist if he doesn't accept certain aspects of psychology, which is a weak argument to begin with. But, even accepting the validity of the argument, it's wrong. He doesn't reject science anywhere that I see. Both poolerboy and JonesHere rested the entire argument of his rejection of science on the word unnatural. Which I addressed above.

 

[MercuryJones]

So pretty much, your argument is he's an idiot who can't be trusted with physics because he had poor word choice in an essay he wrote.

I don't think it's simply a word. It's a rather key word in science.

Aside from that, I point out once again, it is not scientifically inaccurate to describe homosexuality as unnatural. Science has not yet determined the cause of homosexuality. All it has determined is that it's not a choice. You may think it's natural, and good on you for that. But scientifically that determination has not been made.

I disagree. Whatever the cause or causes, it's natural by any standard.

JonesHere has tried to make the argument that he is unfit for a job as a physicist if he doesn't accept certain aspects of psychology, which is a weak argument to begin with.

Actually, no.

1. I did not say he was unfit for a job as a physicist. What I said, and you quoted previously, was "I don't know enough to know if his expertise in physics was so unique that he was worth it. But I do really question his scientific and practical judgment based on what he wrote about gays."

2. That homosexuality is natural is not as aspect of psychology, but of biology, and is an aspect of a pretty basic aspect of science. But that aside, I didn't say it made him unfit for the job. In fact I pretty explicitly said I don't know enough to know if his expertise made him worth it.

 

[poolerboy]

Both poolerboy and JonesHere rested the entire argument of his rejection of science on the word unnatural. Which I addressed above.

Neither of us claimed he "rejects science." Moreover, what he thinks does matter. Considering homosexuality as an unnatural curse is not scientific. I am not sure if he did not really mean it as unnatural in a scientific sense or simply calling it unnatural because he finds it gross and anomalous. It sure makes a reasonable person question his scientific judgment.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ditto. His prejudices have nothing to do with his ability to get his job done. Now, if he had been appointed to head up a civil rights task force, THEN I'd have a problem.

Try the part where he calls it "unnatural" for starters.

I understand what you've written here, but disagree. The word "unnatural" stands on its own, and whether it implies choice or not, it is scientifically inaccurate.

In the context of his essay, the word "unnatural" is actually scientifically accurate, because he is discussing the biological function/purpose of the reproductive organs (among other things). Remember that he's a physicist; he uses biological terms not in their technical sense, but in their common sense, or -- more awkwardly -- in a scientific manner apart from their technical sense.

Since homosexual sex does not result in procreation, he's correct that it's "unnatural", because that's the way he's using the word.

It's a fairly ridiculous choice of word, but there it is.

I'd go even further and say that his conclusion about how gays could be expected to simply not act on that desire presents another level of his poverty of reasoning. It's not a reasonable thing to expect humans to go their lives without meaningful intimate contact - you'd have to be ignorant of humanity to say so.

That's not "going further" so much as going somewhere else. But you're right; the adulterer isn't having to suppress his desire for heterosexual intercourse, because he has a wife, and the same can be said of his other examples.

That just goes to show that when people speak outside their areas of expertise, they have to be treated as ordinary people.



Last: the ones who decided to boot him from the task force were fools. Chu was right to begin with: the man knows his stuff, and that's all that counts. If there were a multiple-victim child rapist in prison who was a brilliant expert in something that could get this oil leak plugged, and Obama put him on the panel, that would be a good choice as well, because all that's important is getting the stupid leak plugged.

 

[MercuryJones]

In the context of his essay, the word "unnatural" is actually scientifically accurate, because he is discussing the biological function/purpose of the reproductive organs (among other things). Remember that he's a physicist; he uses biological terms not in their technical sense, but in their common sense, or -- more awkwardly -- in a scientific manner apart from their technical sense.

But that's not scientific. That's a very crude imitation of science.

Certainly biology is outside his field of expertise. But creating a false category of unnatural is not scientifically sound. He may - as I said - be uniquely qualified for this work, but I don't know enough to have an informed opinion about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

But that's not scientific. That's a very crude imitation of science.

Certainly biology is outside his field of expertise. But creating a false category of unnatural is not scientifically sound. He may - as I said - be uniquely qualified for this work, but I don't know enough to have an informed opinion about it.

There's nothing "false" about it! He's entitled to use the English language, and he never claimed to be speaking in technical biological term. He's perfectly entitled to give his own definition of a term and use it that way; that has nothing to do with being scientific.

 

[MercuryJones]

There's nothing "false" about it! He's entitled to use the English language, and he never claimed to be speaking in technical biological term. He's perfectly entitled to give his own definition of a term and use it that way; that has nothing to do with being scientific.

Well, we agree what he did had nothing to do with being scientific.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, we agree what he did had nothing to do with being scientific.

No, we don't -- you're twisting my words.

You're essentially saying that a person has to speak a certain language to be scientific. I said that's false.

 

[MercuryJones]

You're essentially saying that a person has to speak a certain language to be scientific. I said that's false.

I'm saying words have definitions, and I'm saying his choice of words betrayed a personal bias overriding what he, as a scientist, should have understood the definition of natural to be.

But I also didn't say he should be jailed, unemployed or not eligible for this job because of it.