The American Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand famously cited homosexuality as immoral despite espousing a philosophy based on eudaimonia and invidualism. Contemporary apologists for Rand's position on homosexuality have excused her admission on all the usual grounds: her view reflected the prevailing POV on homosexuality at the time (I would argue, in fact, that it did not), it was just her personal view and not associated with her philosophical views, ad nauseum.

More disturbing, however, is the nomination of James Holsinger by George W Bush to be the next United States Surgeon General; a nomination the Congress will hear this Thursday. Holsinger, a fundamentalist Christian, has opposed homosexuality, like Rand, on moral grounds. The difference between Rand and Holsinger, now that homosexuality has gone mainstream, is, yep, that Holsinger's proponents argue his views of the morality of homosexuality should not be "misconstrued" as his personal views.

First and foremost, the responsibility of the US Surgeon General is to serve as the nation's chief public health official. That service should be premised on the nomination of a qualified person who respects and endorses science, and puts science into the service of promoting and protecting the public health; especially for those citizens most vulnerable because of socio-economic, cultural, and historical factors.

The misuse of science to the detriment of society's most vulnerable members has been evident in numerous historical instances: the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments, electro-shock and LSD treatment for homosexuals.

The notion that homosexuallity---whether in humans or penguins or any other species---is "unnatural," and therefore "immoral," is about as scientific as saying that there is no such thing as a blue moon.