Oh wow I met this guy and spent an extended period of time with him while he tried to heal my homosexuality by blaming my parents...mostly my mother. I'm still gay, and so is he no matter how many children he has with his mail order bride.
I just keep on wondering, could heterosexuals (and I consider myself to be one) be able to turn our sexual orientation? Whenever I hear this bullshit, I always think, could I "learn" to be attracted to members of the safe sex? I think about it for 5 seconds and then "no thanks, I much prefer to salivate over cute guys". So why are certain groups so certain that sexuality is something that is learned and can be trained when it comes to same sex attraction?
Because, as many problems, and personality traits, they come at an early age. Think of a weakness or negative character trait you may have had as a child. Such as shy, etc. Shy people should be loved, etc etc. But most people that are shy are suffering to some degree their own self-restriction. Humanity is excellent at making excuses and justifications for their own real-time inability or closed hearts. Being gay-- is a deviation. Its root cause could be many reasons primarily a trauma or lack of love from one of the parents. Depending on how sensitive the individual, and just each individual-- may process this trauma in different ways. Make no mistake emotional trauma is REAL, and has real consequences in how we live our lives. Self imposed limitations and weaknesses as well. Being gay is an escape to live out ones God-given destiny and role. Just like all those who want to escape their skin color or erase their nationality--No appreciation for God-made and acceptance of God-made OTHER styles. Do you think its healthy to be anorexic, or to be bleaching your skin, to be able to exist only in some high-maintenance, artificial crutch way? Like the girl from a talk-show that takes 3 hours everyday to get ready. ALL these are deviations, no matter how private they are kept. And as usual mankind's response to almost anything is hate. We are a planet of haters, and love is what we need to learn, on this planet, either the easy way (pick up your cross, and face the brunt of the storm while standing for truth, and face all lessons, do not escape into further and further layers and shells). Or the hard way, the slow way, remaining dead but complacent, to society and to your own weaknesses. And eventually learning by tragedy or pain anyway.
See - that's the problem. When we look at anatomically features of gay male brains and straight male brains, we see differences. When you see physiological differences, wouldn't it imply nature and not nurture?
Jennifer Hunter Anatomical differences?? There's been differences in RESPONSE to stimuli, between the brains of primarily heterosexual males vs. primarily homosexual males.... but no physical differences that I'm aware of. Can you clarify?
He's so wrapped up in his right to free speech, that he forgets that free speech doesn't mean only your word matters, but rather it gives everyone the opportunity to speak their minds and that together we can a more broader, well rounded understanding of the discussion being had.
So if a man or woman has homosexual feelings to any degree does that mean that they are by nature homosexual? I don't think so. At one time or another most people have both homosexual or heterosexual feelings and there is a vast degree of variation between them. SO if anyone has any homosexual feelings does that mean they are irretrievably gay? At some point most people decide on a commitment to one side or another but that in no way means that they are impossible to change. Change is a characteristic of mankind.
...as usual, another amateurish assessment that ignores the technical fact that the overwhelming majority of people are to some degree bisexual. Hell, the Kinsey study identified standard deviations of less than 2% for people who derive gratification solely from homosexual interaction. And there exists an enormous conceptual difference in the psychoanalysis between a predominantly straight female who "kissed a girl and liked it" versus someone who's engaged exclusively in homosexual interaction and is suddenly coerced to "change." There is NO empirical evidence of the latter happening for a sustained period of time, and I'd challenge you to show otherwise. The recidivism rate is nearly 100%, which even Exodus International admitted when they recently (and finally!) closed their doors.
I love this argument that marriage is all about family and procreation. This is why we don't allow sterile men or sterile/post-menopausal women to marry. Nor do we allow married men to get vasectomies, or allow married women to get their tubes tied much less hysterectomies. You people really need to abandon this argument as it is so easily dismissed.
"What more could she ask for?" Hmm, let's see: 1) announce his entire therapy as the fraud it is 2) offer complete and total refund to everyone who's ever PAID him in hopes of changing their orientation 3) offer to pay for them to receive REAL and accredited reparative therapy. 4) personally inform African leaders that are misusing his work of his enlightened position and publicly ask them to stop .....and hell, these are just what more *I* would imagine she can ask. The list goes on and on.
"you'll get what you deserve." A self-derived opinion through the rationalizing of multiple conflicting points of perspective? Indeed, I do deserve that, thanks!
He doesn't need to get her to back down. He got her to ignore everything he said and focus on one or two out of context phrases from her book, which she did over and over again. Maddow's attitude is "I can't be converted, so nobody else can". His position is "some people can be converted, if they want to be". Her burden of proof, as an absolute, is much higher and she cannot hope to meet it. But go ahead and tell me again how I failed to spell your word correctly.
"Acceptance is not an option" Disagree, it's definitely an option. Though whether they decide to take that option, is a different story. Many (if not most) who did opt for that, despite knowing the consequences, can attest that family eventually comes around... doesn't mean they'll join you at the queerbar for drag night, but it does mean that they'll learn to love you for who you are. As for others: if they'd abandon you for being who you are, then they never were your friends to begin with
"There are cultures that do not condemn pedophilia." Cite one of them that's in the Western civilized world? Fearmonger much? "Where does it end?" The Slippery Slope argument is a legal fallacy for a reason. At the end of the day, it's up to the civilized societies of the world to decide rights and protections of its people, and most of us in the western world have decided that we're not going to interfere with the life/love of adults who aren't violating the life/rights of another adult.
"Name the last election where more than 2 candidates were allowed into public debate, apart from Ross Perot " Easy, name the last election where more than 2 parties had a greater aggregate than 10% of the polls, apart from Ross Perot, and you'll have your answer. That's why it's done that way.
i understand and after i wrote you that comment i did google it. i was doubtful of what you said because i was taught this in my humanities class. it was a little difficult to understand what you meant by how you wrote your first response, and it sounded as if you were making fun of me lol because you knew something i didn't. but thank you in any way for the quick response and uploading this video.
"You say we shouldn't drill for oil because there might be an oil spill. " No, I'm saying we shouldn't do more drilling until we've DEMONSTRATED that we have the capability to effectively stop, contain, AND clean any type of disaster that may occur from it. What 2010 showed us is that this is most definitely not the case. They were still trying to use methods and technology that failed in the 1979 spill in almost the same way. That, and your airplane example was patently ridiculous.
@ImmortalSynn Accolades and Honors: For her efforts as a political journalist, Rachel Maddow has been awarded: 2010 Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom award. Past recipients include Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and the late Peter Jennings. On Being a Liberal "I am a liberal. I'm not a partisan, not a Democratic Party hack. I'm not trying to advance anybody's agenda."
" I ask again, do you honestly believe that he hasn’t helped a single person who wants to change in this area to experience the change they seek?" In a word, YES. I don't believe that at all.
"Many historians believe that Achilles was gay in the Illiad." Ya really don't even have to dig that deep... heck, the Greeks gave male lovers to their two most popular gods: Zeus loved Ganymede above all of his other trysts, granting him immortality. Hence Jupiter's largest moon bearing the same name. Apollo loved Hyacinthus so much that he cursed his own inability to die, after Hyacinthus was killed by another jealous god (Zephyrus) who also lusted after him.
@LedWhisky69 "The truth is that NO study is flawless, they have limitations" Sure, but those "limitations" are exponentially increased when the study fails to be conducted in (BASIC) ways to reduce statistical-bias in both methods and interpretation. This was very clearly, not, in multiple regards.
Let me reword my statement so you can better understand what I was trying to imply. Why hide in the closet for years then if a gay person willfully understands who he or she is? Stand up for who you are despite what people will say or do. I've been around coworkers who are gay and have no problem with them. They make known on who they are and that's fine with me. I believe in what God has created...one man...one woman!
"The BBC is not corporate owned, RTE in Ireland isn't." And none of them have any sway in US politics nor over the 2party US system... or did you somehow forget that that's what we were talking about, and not the UK/France/Germany?
I wasn't talking about her, I was talking about the guys who say being gay is a choice and those statistics the guy in this interview claimed in his book. Incidentally, I think it has been suggested by scientific studies that genetics actually does play a part in determining whether you're gay or not.
Did you somehow miss the part where she appeared to know more about what's actually in his book than he did?? That notwithstanding the fact that she has a policy of thoroughly reading any book she discusses on her show, whether she endorses it or not.
"U didn't get my point." Actually, the exact opposite.... you just proved mine: societies will choose what works best for them, and it's going to be relative.
"whats she accomplished??" Let's see: a PhD, a Rhodes Scholarship, a multi-million dollar annual salary, international name recognition, and a New York Times bestseller...... y'know, the kind of things that no human would ever want. Get a clue.
"He doesn't need to get her to back down." But he sorta needs to not... let... her... back... HIM... down, which he quite obviously failed to do. "Maddow's attitude is "I can't be converted, so nobody else can". BS. She does not bring her self into this. She simply says there's no empirical proof. And that's not something she just made up, again, it's the conclusion of EVERY SINGLE national psych society in the western world. NOT ONE stands behind this man's conclusions.
Sure, you could turn a gay straight. You could also convince someone his mother was a duck and have him quacking on stage in front of a crowd of people. Brainwashing is a different approach at hypnosis. It usually takes longer and the tactics could be harmful in nature, but, brainwashing is, after all, relative to hypnosis.
I find it interesting that an open and proud homosexual has to essentially argue the definition of what being gay is (for her) and what being gay was (for him) because you know the underlying argument between them is Rachel's view that homosexuality can't be changed and his view that indeed it can.. (nature vs. nurture)
"Again, we offer effective counseling" When EVERY (not one, not some, but EVERY) official body that's qualified to make the assessment of what is effective and what is not... disagrees. THAT is the operative kicker that you don't seem to be grasping.
Hey man i would like to say that you are awesome for replying to all these comments :D major respect for that because there are definitely a lot of crazy people who posted here. Wooo for facts haha
@osiris6364 No. I'm gay. I couldn't "turn straight" even if I wanted to. Which I don't. As a kid, closeted and scared, I tried to force myself to be attracted to women (sexually). Many of my friends were girls, so I had no problem relating to women. But when it came to having sexual desire for them...never happened. I know straight men who've experimented with guys (giving/receiving oral, etc.), but that doesn't mean they've changed their orientation. You can't change your orientation.
Nature DIDN'T get it wrong, which is why homosexuality isn't restricted to just humans, just primates, or even just mammals. I wouldn't expect someone who can't properly spell the word "you're" to realize that, much less process it, so I'll just put this up for others to observe.
There's nothing wrong with someone's sexuality evolving, whether it's embracing a same sex attraction or acknowledging that attraction has faded over time. What's wrong is the idea that someone's sexuality needs to be- or in fact can be- forcibly changed, in any way.
We probably agree on this one more than you realize. I just get upset at the insulting tone Rachel takes when she decides to shred someone on her show. From what I could tell, this author claims he used to be gay, didn't want to be, and somehow found a cure...and (if all trye, of course) now wants to share what worked for him. That's what I got from it. If he's a "shyster" as you say, I don't know. But obviously that was Rachel's take on it, and she felt "licensed" to microwave the guy.
She is an amazing journalist and clearly did her research. It's my opinion though that she was overly critical of this man for personal reasons. He included an inaccurate fact in his book, but it is very easy for extremists to apply selective reading to nearly whatever they read. He seemed to be very kind, and at the very least respectful. Name calling and determining who is the winner shouldn't be what we get out of this.
He's never proposed gay execution himself. Just that his work is touted those who are. Yet he continues to stand behind that work, even with the knowledge of that.
"Sure, if you look at north dakota and montana their economies are booming because of increased oil drilling and coal mining." And if you look at Mississippi, Alabama, and ESPECIALLY the Florida panhandle, their economies still haven't recovered since on of the worst drilling disasters in history essentially destroyed a year and half of productivity and patronage of their beachfront areas. We can play this gay allllll day long. And yes, I WILL tell you about the environment.
I am lesbian, and there is absolutely no cause for that. That is how I was born, and no therapy can change me. I could pretend to be straight, but then I would live a lie and I would be forever unhappy. If you don't accept who you are, you can never be truly happy.
"Quite frankly his work is rejected because it's against liberals and it's against homosexuality." ...riiiiiight. I'm sure the fact that it 1) provides no empirical evidence, 2) offers no sterile control against anecdotal occurrence and 3) hasn't been independently verifiable (ya know, three tenants of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD) might have just a litttttttle bit more to do with the reason why every such SCIENTIFIC association has rejected it. #GetAClue
"Why should they repost something." Because they were asked to Einstein, why else? "Why can't you read it" Not really important enough to me to apply the effort-- hence asking them to repost it if it's important enough to them. Heyyyy! lol "and reply without your snide attitude?" What'd be the fun in that?
"You have to know that he is a panelist on ABC news, not fox news." Yes, he's ALSO a panelist for ABC, but he also appears as a routine panelist on two Fox broadcasts. I can't even "forgive" NPR's Mara Liasson for that, much less take anything she and he say, seriously.
Props to @ImmortalSynn for carrying on a battle that was doomed from the start. Visceral and/or faith-based rhetoric is unarguable because it's not logical - it likes to think it is, but it's not. Rachel Maddow is refreshingly sensible when compared to, oh, I don't know, Fox News and, in fact, the entire journalistic profession in the US. The profession that was shamed by a satirist (Jon Stewart) to actually start publicising the ridiculous state of lobbyist-led party politics.
This guy is just afraid of himself... afraid of who he really is. He's scared he won't be accepted. It's not totally his fault, in fact, society should treat everyone equally. I feel sorry for his wife and children, they shouldn't have to deal with this.
It amazes me that people think its okay to go from straight-to-gay, but its not okay to go from gay-to-straight. People can change. "With God all things are possible."
"Why would these broadcasters have an effect on US elections when their mandate is to service the people funding them and the country they're in?" no shit, why do you think I asked you your point in even bringing them up, when we were talking about US elections and partisanship. "you think the US wouldn't be a better place to live in if there were more parties free to run for election?" Considering that there ARE many more than two parties free to do so, I'd say that's not a solution per se
I watched it carefully twice, and was bothered the exact same way as I am in each of her videos, how she thinks she is the absolute last (and correct) word on moral authority. Rand Paul was just torn on how to respect the concept of a "private" institution while also being a legislator fighting against discriminization. She was trult spinning it to frame him as the bad guy...just cause he disagreed with her on one thing. She didn't realize that her concept essentially wipes out "private."
"If we do not have the technology to drill for oil in a better way than in 1979" Which isn't remotely what I said, but great job on the critical reading skills. "And what of my question on oil tankers" You mean the one you claimed to "some studies" without providing a single citation, and then again asking a hypothetical? Indeed, what OF it?
"You still haven't proven that those words mean the same thing" Nor have you shown otherwise. Thus, what's your point? "That's your silly little assumption." Ya mean like 99% of everything else people from the Bible? Brilliant assessment!
"she spends her entire show promoting her own social and political agendas." Out of curiosity... um, you *DO* realize that she broadcasts an opinion talk show, and not a newscast, do you not? Or did that somehow escape your grasp? I'd wonder.
That should be of no real concern to him. Heck, once this stuff finally IS taken on by the government, which it likely will be at some point (several European nations and California, have already taken the lead on that) he's going to face the same scrutiny by officials who have no reason whatsoever to be of a "nice" tone, and plenty to treat him as fraudulent-until-proven-otherwise. If this person can't handle the likes of Rachel, in a convincing way, then he's doomed, in that regard.
Nobody chooses to be gay, why would anyone choose to be hated by others. Neither is being gay a mental thing that needs to be cured or helped. Doubt anyone out there has to hide their straight feelings from family members because of fear and repercussions , so how does one come out straight?
"It's just a piece of paper" That entitles you to nearly 1,100 different protections, benefits, and tax breaks; that "they" as adult taxpayers, wouldn't otherwise get... ...PLEASE tell me that you were sharp enough to immediately hit him with that.
Oh wow I met this guy and spent an extended period of time with him while he tried to heal my homosexuality by blaming my parents...mostly my mother. I'm still gay, and so is he no matter how many children he has with his mail order bride.
The future will look at us the way we look at the salem witch trials.
so true… And they will look at us like we look at the ancient norse, romans and greeks and think of our beliefs as mythology
magic_man_32
Lol
What is this guy thinking? LOL Rachel is using his own material to prove him wrong.
@ 7:41, the look on his face is priceless! Kind of a "Oh shit..I did write that" look!
"How can there be such a thing as unwanted homosexual orientation if gay is a choice?"
BAM! You hit the nail straight on the head. Well said.
Thanks so much for uploading this!
"she took out a quote to misrepresent him!"
I'd be extremely interested to hear you explain exactly how she "misrepresented" him... do share.
I almost feel bad for this guy. He's soooo out of touch, so brainwashed...
I was especially aware of his use of the word "thrust"... LOL
You have to admire Maddow's incredible patience when dealing with the morons and crazies that come to her door.
Ugh this is too painfull to watch. Who does this guy think he's speaking with?
Jensena Mangus
Her name is Rachel Maddow.
I just keep on wondering, could heterosexuals (and I consider myself to be one) be able to turn our sexual orientation? Whenever I hear this bullshit, I always think, could I "learn" to be attracted to members of the safe sex? I think about it for 5 seconds and then "no thanks, I much prefer to salivate over cute guys". So why are certain groups so certain that sexuality is something that is learned and can be trained when it comes to same sex attraction?
Because, as many problems, and personality traits, they come at an early age. Think of a weakness or negative character trait you may have had as a child. Such as shy, etc. Shy people should be loved, etc etc. But most people that are shy are suffering to some degree their own self-restriction.
Humanity is excellent at making excuses and justifications for their own real-time inability or closed hearts.
Being gay-- is a deviation. Its root cause could be many reasons primarily a trauma or lack of love from one of the parents. Depending on how sensitive the individual, and just each individual-- may process this trauma in different ways.
Make no mistake emotional trauma is REAL, and has real consequences in how we live our lives. Self imposed limitations and weaknesses as well.
Being gay is an escape to live out ones God-given destiny and role. Just like all those who want to escape their skin color or erase their nationality--No appreciation for God-made and acceptance of God-made OTHER styles.
Do you think its healthy to be anorexic, or to be bleaching your skin, to be able to exist only in some high-maintenance, artificial crutch way? Like the girl from a talk-show that takes 3 hours everyday to get ready.
ALL these are deviations, no matter how private they are kept.
And as usual mankind's response to almost anything is hate.
We are a planet of haters, and love is what we need to learn, on this planet, either the easy way (pick up your cross, and face the brunt of the storm while standing for truth, and face all lessons, do not escape into further and further layers and shells). Or the hard way, the slow way, remaining dead but complacent, to society and to your own weaknesses. And eventually learning by tragedy or pain anyway.
Because people are idiots.
See - that's the problem. When we look at anatomically features of gay male brains and straight male brains, we see differences. When you see physiological differences, wouldn't it imply nature and not nurture?
Ivonne W You've got to be kidding me with this mind-numbingly unscientific drivel.
Jennifer Hunter Anatomical differences?? There's been differences in RESPONSE to stimuli, between the brains of primarily heterosexual males vs. primarily homosexual males.... but no physical differences that I'm aware of. Can you clarify?
"Why can't we leave churches out of it?"
Because churches keep sticking their nose into the issue... why else?!
He's so wrapped up in his right to free speech, that he forgets that free speech doesn't mean only your word matters, but rather it gives everyone the opportunity to speak their minds and that together we can a more broader, well rounded understanding of the discussion being had.
"We are about loving people"
Except them' darn gays, we advocate executing them.
Incidentally how do you recruit someone into gay-ness ?
What a nice man. It's not his fault that someone used his book to hurt others. It seems like he only wants to help.
So if a man or woman has homosexual feelings to any degree does that mean that they are by nature homosexual? I don't think so. At one time or another most people have both homosexual or heterosexual feelings and there is a vast degree of variation between them. SO if anyone has any homosexual feelings does that mean they are irretrievably gay? At some point most people decide on a commitment to one side or another but that in no way means that they are impossible to change. Change is a characteristic of mankind.
...as usual, another amateurish assessment that ignores the technical fact that the overwhelming majority of people are to some degree bisexual. Hell, the Kinsey study identified standard deviations of less than 2% for people who derive gratification solely from homosexual interaction. And there exists an enormous conceptual difference in the psychoanalysis between a predominantly straight female who "kissed a girl and liked it" versus someone who's engaged exclusively in homosexual interaction and is suddenly coerced to "change."
There is NO empirical evidence of the latter happening for a sustained period of time, and I'd challenge you to show otherwise. The recidivism rate is nearly 100%, which even Exodus International admitted when they recently (and finally!) closed their doors.
Interesting reading about the Kinsey reports: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports
His face annoys me.
"CLICK HERE to see a horse LIT ON FIRE (for therapy, not cruelty)"
How the hell am I supposed to stop myself from clicking that? :D
"Oh i'll be taking that excerpt out in the reprint". Um why was it there in the first place?
Maddow's on top form as always
"FORMER HOMOSEXUAL" hahahahahahahahahaha ohhggg. you can´t make this up.
This woman is awesome!
I love this argument that marriage is all about family and procreation. This is why we don't allow sterile men or sterile/post-menopausal women to marry. Nor do we allow married men to get vasectomies, or allow married women to get their tubes tied much less hysterectomies. You people really need to abandon this argument as it is so easily dismissed.
"he too is a journalist"
Yeah, that'll be the day...
@ImmortalSynn: I was trying to find a reply to Clay Moore that would outstage yours.... but I couldn't. Absolutely perfectly put. Bravo.
"What more could she ask for?"
Hmm, let's see:
1) announce his entire therapy as the fraud it is
2) offer complete and total refund to everyone who's ever PAID him in hopes of changing their orientation
3) offer to pay for them to receive REAL and accredited reparative therapy.
4) personally inform African leaders that are misusing his work of his enlightened position and publicly ask them to stop
.....and hell, these are just what more *I* would imagine she can ask. The list goes on and on.
"you'll get what you deserve."
A self-derived opinion through the rationalizing of multiple conflicting points of perspective?
Indeed, I do deserve that, thanks!
If you were really about loving people, you would accept them.
"Obvious Day on Planet Duhhh?"
Oh Gods, that was awesome. I'm saving this one for future use...
'You took that one little quote out of a 300 page book'
'Yup'
He doesn't need to get her to back down. He got her to ignore everything he said and focus on one or two out of context phrases from her book, which she did over and over again. Maddow's attitude is "I can't be converted, so nobody else can". His position is "some people can be converted, if they want to be". Her burden of proof, as an absolute, is much higher and she cannot hope to meet it. But go ahead and tell me again how I failed to spell your word correctly.
- "You quote one sentence out of a book of 300 pages...."
- "Yup!"
"And society have chosen to say gay rights is not the best thing."
Oh? What society would that be now...
Everything from Spain to South Africa. Next question?
"I need a little help here"
No freakin' joke, lol.
"Acceptance is not an option"
Disagree, it's definitely an option. Though whether they decide to take that option, is a different story.
Many (if not most) who did opt for that, despite knowing the consequences, can attest that family eventually comes around... doesn't mean they'll join you at the queerbar for drag night, but it does mean that they'll learn to love you for who you are.
As for others: if they'd abandon you for being who you are, then they never were your friends to begin with
"There are cultures that do not condemn pedophilia."
Cite one of them that's in the Western civilized world? Fearmonger much?
"Where does it end?"
The Slippery Slope argument is a legal fallacy for a reason. At the end of the day, it's up to the civilized societies of the world to decide rights and protections of its people, and most of us in the western world have decided that we're not going to interfere with the life/love of adults who aren't violating the life/rights of another adult.
"Name the last election where more than 2 candidates were allowed into public debate, apart from Ross Perot "
Easy, name the last election where more than 2 parties had a greater aggregate than 10% of the polls, apart from Ross Perot, and you'll have your answer. That's why it's done that way.
i understand and after i wrote you that comment i did google it. i was doubtful of what you said because i was taught this in my humanities class. it was a little difficult to understand what you meant by how you wrote your first response, and it sounded as if you were making fun of me lol because you knew something i didn't. but thank you in any way for the quick response and uploading this video.
"Believe whatever bullshit you want, it doesn't affect me"
My thoughts on your commentary exactly. :)
"and she said some dumb stuff"
Oh really? Then share with us, what "dumb stuff" did this Oxford PhD say?
This oughta be rich....lol
Bingo! Which is the typical course of the ex-gay concept: behavior changes, but orientation doesn't.
"You say we shouldn't drill for oil because there might be an oil spill. "
No, I'm saying we shouldn't do more drilling until we've DEMONSTRATED that we have the capability to effectively stop, contain, AND clean any type of disaster that may occur from it.
What 2010 showed us is that this is most definitely not the case. They were still trying to use methods and technology that failed in the 1979 spill in almost the same way.
That, and your airplane example was patently ridiculous.
" In fact, American Psychological Association works to stop these "Therapy" groups."
...and in California, they recently achieved a major victory!
Where's the rest of the video? I wanted to see how the guest would respond to Maddow's last question.
@ImmortalSynn Accolades and Honors:
For her efforts as a political journalist, Rachel Maddow has been awarded:
2010 Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom award. Past recipients include Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and the late Peter Jennings.
On Being a Liberal
"I am a liberal. I'm not a partisan, not a Democratic Party hack. I'm not trying to advance anybody's agenda."
" I ask again, do you honestly believe that he hasn’t helped a single person who wants to change in this area to experience the change they seek?"
In a word, YES. I don't believe that at all.
I'm curious as to if you understand what the "pt 1/2" in the title indicates....?
"Many historians believe that Achilles was gay in the Illiad."
Ya really don't even have to dig that deep... heck, the Greeks gave male lovers to their two most popular gods:
Zeus loved Ganymede above all of his other trysts, granting him immortality. Hence Jupiter's largest moon bearing the same name.
Apollo loved Hyacinthus so much that he cursed his own inability to die, after Hyacinthus was killed by another jealous god (Zephyrus) who also lusted after him.
"She considers herself a reporter"
She has never, at any point in her television career, referred to herself as a reporter.
@LedWhisky69
"The truth is that NO study is flawless, they have limitations"
Sure, but those "limitations" are exponentially increased when the study fails to be conducted in (BASIC) ways to reduce statistical-bias in both methods and interpretation. This was very clearly, not, in multiple regards.
Let me reword my statement so you can better understand what I was trying to imply. Why hide in the closet for years then if a gay person willfully understands who he or she is? Stand up for who you are despite what people will say or do. I've been around coworkers who are gay and have no problem with them. They make known on who they are and that's fine with me. I believe in what God has created...one man...one woman!
Dude... pay a-freaking-tention! Did we not JUST finish discussing influence vs determination? Sheesh.
"The BBC is not corporate owned, RTE in Ireland isn't."
And none of them have any sway in US politics nor over the 2party US system... or did you somehow forget that that's what we were talking about, and not the UK/France/Germany?
I wasn't talking about her, I was talking about the guys who say being gay is a choice and those statistics the guy in this interview claimed in his book. Incidentally, I think it has been suggested by scientific studies that genetics actually does play a part in determining whether you're gay or not.
Did you somehow miss the part where she appeared to know more about what's actually in his book than he did?? That notwithstanding the fact that she has a policy of thoroughly reading any book she discusses on her show, whether she endorses it or not.
"U didn't get my point."
Actually, the exact opposite.... you just proved mine: societies will choose what works best for them, and it's going to be relative.
"whats she accomplished??"
Let's see:
a PhD, a Rhodes Scholarship, a multi-million dollar annual salary, international name recognition, and a New York Times bestseller...... y'know, the kind of things that no human would ever want.
Get a clue.
"I really feel like you are *overthinking* this."
I'm 98% certain there's no such thing.
"He doesn't need to get her to back down."
But he sorta needs to not... let... her... back... HIM... down, which he quite obviously failed to do.
"Maddow's attitude is "I can't be converted, so nobody else can".
BS. She does not bring her self into this. She simply says there's no empirical proof. And that's not something she just made up, again, it's the conclusion of EVERY SINGLE national psych society in the western world. NOT ONE stands behind this man's conclusions.
Sure, you could turn a gay straight. You could also convince someone his mother was a duck and have him quacking on stage in front of a crowd of people. Brainwashing is a different approach at hypnosis. It usually takes longer and the tactics could be harmful in nature, but, brainwashing is, after all, relative to hypnosis.
Is this the guy that I saw hitting a tennis racket and screaming "MOM!! MOM!! MOM!!"?
No one said we should be torturing anyone. That was your defensiveness.
I find it interesting that an open and proud homosexual has to essentially argue the definition of what being gay is (for her) and what being gay was (for him) because you know the underlying argument between them is Rachel's view that homosexuality can't be changed and his view that indeed it can.. (nature vs. nurture)
"Again, we offer effective counseling"
When EVERY (not one, not some, but EVERY) official body that's qualified to make the assessment of what is effective and what is not... disagrees. THAT is the operative kicker that you don't seem to be grasping.
Hey man i would like to say that you are awesome for replying to all these comments :D major respect for that because there are definitely a lot of crazy people who posted here. Wooo for facts haha
Agreed. It's no different than the types in the 1950s who'd say things like "segregation was for the wellbeing of the negro" with a straight face.
@osiris6364 No. I'm gay. I couldn't "turn straight" even if I wanted to. Which I don't. As a kid, closeted and scared, I tried to force myself to be attracted to women (sexually). Many of my friends were girls, so I had no problem relating to women. But when it came to having sexual desire for them...never happened. I know straight men who've experimented with guys (giving/receiving oral, etc.), but that doesn't mean they've changed their orientation. You can't change your orientation.
Nature DIDN'T get it wrong, which is why homosexuality isn't restricted to just humans, just primates, or even just mammals.
I wouldn't expect someone who can't properly spell the word "you're" to realize that, much less process it, so I'll just put this up for others to observe.
There's nothing wrong with someone's sexuality evolving, whether it's embracing a same sex attraction or acknowledging that attraction has faded over time. What's wrong is the idea that someone's sexuality needs to be- or in fact can be- forcibly changed, in any way.
We probably agree on this one more than you realize. I just get upset at the insulting tone Rachel takes when she decides to shred someone on her show. From what I could tell, this author claims he used to be gay, didn't want to be, and somehow found a cure...and (if all trye, of course) now wants to share what worked for him. That's what I got from it. If he's a "shyster" as you say, I don't know. But obviously that was Rachel's take on it, and she felt "licensed" to microwave the guy.
@WickederThanThou
Why do you assume that someone who doesn't like it, continues to (or ever even did) watch it in the first place?
She is an amazing journalist and clearly did her research. It's my opinion though that she was overly critical of this man for personal reasons. He included an inaccurate fact in his book, but it is very easy for extremists to apply selective reading to nearly whatever they read. He seemed to be very kind, and at the very least respectful. Name calling and determining who is the winner shouldn't be what we get out of this.
Oh no, thank YOU, for so thoughtlessly providing such effortless fodder for such. :)
He's never proposed gay execution himself. Just that his work is touted those who are. Yet he continues to stand behind that work, even with the knowledge of that.
"Sure, if you look at north dakota and montana their economies are booming because of increased oil drilling and coal mining."
And if you look at Mississippi, Alabama, and ESPECIALLY the Florida panhandle, their economies still haven't recovered since on of the worst drilling disasters in history essentially destroyed a year and half of productivity and patronage of their beachfront areas.
We can play this gay allllll day long. And yes, I WILL tell you about the environment.
I am lesbian, and there is absolutely no cause for that. That is how I was born, and no therapy can change me. I could pretend to be straight, but then I would live a lie and I would be forever unhappy. If you don't accept who you are, you can never be truly happy.
The statistics that are read at 4:01. Is Rachel Maddow saying that they are untrue or is she only saying that he shouldn't publish them?
"Quite frankly his work is rejected because it's against liberals and it's against homosexuality."
...riiiiiight. I'm sure the fact that it 1) provides no empirical evidence, 2) offers no sterile control against anecdotal occurrence and 3) hasn't been independently verifiable (ya know, three tenants of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD) might have just a litttttttle bit more to do with the reason why every such SCIENTIFIC association has rejected it. #GetAClue
"Why should they repost something."
Because they were asked to Einstein, why else?
"Why can't you read it"
Not really important enough to me to apply the effort-- hence asking them to repost it if it's important enough to them. Heyyyy! lol
"and reply without your snide attitude?"
What'd be the fun in that?
"You have to know that he is a panelist on ABC news, not fox news."
Yes, he's ALSO a panelist for ABC, but he also appears as a routine panelist on two Fox broadcasts. I can't even "forgive" NPR's Mara Liasson for that, much less take anything she and he say, seriously.
Props to @ImmortalSynn for carrying on a battle that was doomed from the start.
Visceral and/or faith-based rhetoric is unarguable because it's not logical - it likes to think it is, but it's not.
Rachel Maddow is refreshingly sensible when compared to, oh, I don't know, Fox News and, in fact, the entire journalistic profession in the US. The profession that was shamed by a satirist (Jon Stewart) to actually start publicising the ridiculous state of lobbyist-led party politics.
Newsflash genius, HIV/AIDS was first observed in, and continues to be overwhelmingly dominant in, straight people living in poverty, not gays.
This guy is just afraid of himself... afraid of who he really is. He's scared he won't be accepted. It's not totally his fault, in fact, society should treat everyone equally. I feel sorry for his wife and children, they shouldn't have to deal with this.
It amazes me that people think its okay to go from straight-to-gay, but its not okay to go from gay-to-straight. People can change. "With God all things are possible."
"Why would these broadcasters have an effect on US elections when their mandate is to service the people funding them and the country they're in?"
no shit, why do you think I asked you your point in even bringing them up, when we were talking about US elections and partisanship.
"you think the US wouldn't be a better place to live in if there were more parties free to run for election?"
Considering that there ARE many more than two parties free to do so, I'd say that's not a solution per se
I don't think this man has ever encountered a gay person in his entire life.
I know. I realized it after. but thank you for filling my quota of a daily unnecessary smear.
you took one little quote out of a 300pg book.....yup. hahahaha great stuff
I watched it carefully twice, and was bothered the exact same way as I am in each of her videos, how she thinks she is the absolute last (and correct) word on moral authority. Rand Paul was just torn on how to respect the concept of a "private" institution while also being a legislator fighting against discriminization. She was trult spinning it to frame him as the bad guy...just cause he disagreed with her on one thing. She didn't realize that her concept essentially wipes out "private."
The leading author on 'reparative therapy' has retracted his study and apologized for any harm he caused.
"If we do not have the technology to drill for oil in a better way than in 1979"
Which isn't remotely what I said, but great job on the critical reading skills.
"And what of my question on oil tankers"
You mean the one you claimed to "some studies" without providing a single citation, and then again asking a hypothetical? Indeed, what OF it?
"You still haven't proven that those words mean the same thing"
Nor have you shown otherwise. Thus, what's your point?
"That's your silly little assumption."
Ya mean like 99% of everything else people from the Bible? Brilliant assessment!
"she spends her entire show promoting her own social and political agendas."
Out of curiosity... um, you *DO* realize that she broadcasts an opinion talk show, and not a newscast, do you not? Or did that somehow escape your grasp?
I'd wonder.
I had no freaking idea one E was in judgment...i stand corrected!...thanks for the corrections
That should be of no real concern to him.
Heck, once this stuff finally IS taken on by the government, which it likely will be at some point (several European nations and California, have already taken the lead on that) he's going to face the same scrutiny by officials who have no reason whatsoever to be of a "nice" tone, and plenty to treat him as fraudulent-until-proven-otherwise.
If this person can't handle the likes of Rachel, in a convincing way, then he's doomed, in that regard.
"That's your argument?"
Nah, but I was serious with the last three words in that.
Nobody chooses to be gay, why would anyone choose to be hated by others. Neither is being gay a mental thing that needs to be cured or helped. Doubt anyone out there has to hide their straight feelings from family members because of fear and repercussions , so how does one come out straight?
Um, you realize that the "it doesn't" is being asked COMPLETELY facetiously, do you not???
"It's just a piece of paper"
That entitles you to nearly 1,100 different protections, benefits, and tax breaks; that "they" as adult taxpayers, wouldn't otherwise get...
...PLEASE tell me that you were sharp enough to immediately hit him with that.