This post is a long one in that I am posting the video of Rachel Maddow‘s interview with Richard Cohen, of the International Healing Foundation, last night. After the video I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill. Here is the video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The interview started off strong and polite. Richard did a pretty good job of being assertive and getting out there to “set the record straight.” Rachel, of course, is not operating her show as a journalist but an opinionated pundit … a fact that seems to escape her. The proof of that is her willingness to talk about how she resents one of Richard’s books, is “afraid of promoting him” by having him on the show and constantly repeating overworn and untrue talking points of “pray away the gay” and “cure/convert homosexuals.”
Based on Rachel’s own inability to be objective, it isn’t surprising that she goes for the jugular quickly by showing the Ugandan leader Langa, who supports the horrible anti-homosexuality bill, quoting Richard on a video. Then she goes directly into how the Ugandan government is basically stigmatizing gay people as predators followed by a quote from Richard’s book about the allegation that some gay people are predators trying to recruit young people into homosexuality.
Ouch. It’s an unfair stringing together of quotes to make her biased case (because Langa’s quote was not the same quote she picked) but … it seemed really easy for her to do.
Of course, Rachel equating Richard to the Ugandan government’s hatred of homosexuals is opportunistic and I will get into how that is a false angle to lead from later in the post. Even with all the very serious disagreements I have had with Richard over the years (and we have had numerous long conversations about all of that) … I honestly think he would put himself in harms way before allowing someone to physically attack a gay person.
He might be willing to be offensively provocative (in his writings and interviews) but, as he indicated in the interview, he would never support the level of vitriole and hatred that is motivating the Ugandan bill.
In the interview, Richard strongly denounced the bill and mentioned that Caleb (the IHF representative who went to Uganda last spring) made a passionate plea to everyone at the spring conference to love everyone regardless of whether they choose to embrace homosexuality or to “come out straight.” Come Out Straight also happens to be the name of Richard’s book.
It seems Rachel isn’t the only opportunistic one in the interview 
. Can’t blame the man I guess.
While I think it is clever to incorporate “come out straight” into his responses, I think it is distracting and doesn’t allow for the fact that people like myself reject the “straight” label as much as I reject a gay identity.
Sidenote: My goal never was and never has been to be “straight” my goal is Christ Himself. I have questioned, challenged and redefined my identity and worldview. I have opened my mind up to the possibility of sexual orientation change and 17 years later have experienced a large degree of it. But the proof of my success is my contentment in Christ regardless of any circumstance.
… But back to the point!
Then there were some quotes that Rachel made that were simply shocking. Richard showed some humility in saying he would delete a quote by debunked, and my personal opinion quite hateful, Paul Cameron.
Then Rachel goes after Richard personally on a professional and personal level. She brings up that he was kicked out of the ACA (American Counseling Association). He defended himself well until he said that he was a victim of a “hate crime” at the hands of the ACA.
No … Richard is not the victim of a crime. Hate? Maybe. But Professional organizations can hatefully remove members if they want. Of course I know nothing of how the ACA works but saying he was a victim of a hate crime doesn’t work and is more distracting than helpful. I would hope in hindsight he would agree.
Rachel went to further prove that she is not a true journalist and a full on attack pundit when she went after Richard personally. He did about as well as a person could do in defending himself and humbly admitting his extramarital affairs the first three years of his 27 years of marriage. The only problem is that he seemed to mention (without incorporating his struggles at first) his marriage and children as proving his credibility to help others because Rachel was literally “announcing to the world that he is not licensed by any credible organization.” Because he didn’t say he had a difficult journey to begin with that opened the door for Rachel to unfairly dismiss him out of hand.
But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.
Rachel Maddow spent over 17 minutes (an eternity on cable news) attacking the idea that people can change (rejecting a gay identity/worldview, pursue sexual orientation change) and Richard personally. She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill.
Now, to be sure, there are a number of people all along the spectrum of belief working to oppose this bill. Warren Throckmorton (who really really doesn’t agree with Richard Cohen) has done an amazing amount of research and work into finding ways to rally people to communicate their denunciation of the Ugandan bill. I have had some productive conversation, publicly and privately with Michael Bussee (and others who identify as gay), who have a clear view of doing whatever it takes to defeat this bill for the Ugandans sake. My boss and friend, Alan Chambers related to me that David Roberts of XGW is passionate about the issue and does genuinely feel protecting Ugandan’s is the top priority. Not to mention, there are a lot of leads, possibilities and dialog happening in the background that is best served by not turning it into a public fight with gay activists.
In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives. She only earned herself the accolades of the activist community and Gawker giving her the title of, “The new heavy weight champion of gay cable news anchors: RACHEL MADDOW!!!”
MORE:
Rachel Maddow, Uganda and Me – Guest Post by Don Schmierer
Don Schmierer Added to Letter Opposing Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Charisma News Online Picks Up Ugandan Story
Exodus International Sends Letter Opposing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Martin Ssempa Should Renounce Support for Proposed Ugandan Criminalization of Homosexuality
Ugandan Government Poised to Harshly Prosecute Homosexuals
PLUS:
Dr. Warren Throckmorton has started a Facebook group as a central point for news and information on the subject.
About Randy Thomas
On the contrary. I think gay people have never had a stronger more visible advocate on such a wide public stage. I think it was an historical moment in the struggle against homophobia and oppression of gay people. Rachel Maddow’s clarity and intelligence in the service of gay liberation is heroic.
Really? … wow. I can understand, not agree but understand, someone who thinks like her applauding her what I would consider unprofessional behavior but a “historical moment” ?
Regardless, thank you for adding your thoughts.
The point about in-fighting and competing agendas doing disservice to the Uganda issue needed to be made. Thanks, Randy. I have been on the receiving end of some of these divisive attacks, despite my public stance against the Uganda bill. I did take seriously the suggestion by a gay activist that something I’d written a couple years ago was being used to promote anti-gay sentiment in Uganda. The very thought sickened me. It seems they are grasping at straws over there.
Murderous people often try to abuse other people’s thoughts and writings for justifying their own venomous actions. The Ugandan leadership is the only responsible party for this horrible legislation.
I was told by a really prominent lesbian activist one time that many gay activists will contextualize whatever controversy in a double bind situation to bully conservative Christians and then say that their double bind view of whatever situation is the ONLY view possible.
If a Christian accepts their view as the only way to engage a situation they will always be on the hook for something and whatever positive action taken will never be enough. The activist doesn’t want to actually work together … they want to keep the Christian feeling beholden to the activist. And if the Christian is trying to score points with the gay community, the easier it is to keep them on the hook through successive double bind situations. This educates and firms up the activist’s base support while occupying and wearing out the worldview they are ultimately trying to undermine and/or completely replace.
This tactic of “dialog” is so prevalent most people don’t even realize they are doing it. Our media does it ALL the time. She said it was a purposeful tactic of some gay activists but in truth I think our culture is taught to do that through the media and the legacy of the culture war.
I would assume you are aware of what a double bind situation is but just in case… here is the link again.
Again, I was told that by a lesbian activist. I really like her. She is very candid (loved that about hr) and very nice. … Funny too. I am going to try and find her again (haven’t talked to her in a while.)
I like Jesus’ responses to Pharisaic, double-bind conundrums. The current bridge-building movement is mostly perpetuated by straight Christians. I see very little desire to meet in the middle or seriously dialogue with consideration to the Christian or conservative viewpoint on the part of gays, Christian or not. But they get away with it, as you point out. It’s a passive-aggressive form of activism.
EXTREMELY relevant point, Debbie! Thanks for posting that!
Ya, it is a movement to discredit those who say that change is possible and it is a passive – aggressive form of activism … none of which really does seek to bridge with Side X. It’s all about Side A and Side B and oh, then there is Side X which is totally pushed away in this whole bridging effort. So, it’s bridging with conditions and one condition is that Side X people are not welcome into the bridging efforts.
I don’t think many people will know what you are talking about Sarah and I wasn’t speaking specifically about that project.
But if the shoe fits that project … I’ll take your word for it. I have heard similar from others.
I will say as a Side B person that I totally like to build bridges with Side X, but mainly because I don’t see much difference between Side B and Side X. In fact, I think I might personally know more Side B people who have eventually gotten heterosexually married than Side X people. The difference isn’t really their beliefs or how they live their lives. It’s more about how we go about those beliefs, and what terminology is used. Political differences might also play a part. But I’m talking in GCN mode now. We can chat about this privately if anyone wants to e-mail me. Take care!
I just watched a youtube video of a protest that had been done at an Exodus Conference. They were saying how Exodus is supporting the government to legislate the execution and persecution of gays. Everything they mentioned was totally out of conext and filled with missleading information and for the life of me I don’t understand how they’re believing all of what they were saying.
And another thought that came to mind and it’s sorta connected to this video and your review are people who take what you say, twist it out of context, and then use their twisted version of one or two sentences taken out of context to make their argument …. and then people turning around and saying because you have a testimony of healing and of one coming out of homosexuality you are responsible for what is happening in Uganda and you have blood on your hands because of that.
All I have to say is that .. wow …. I don’t understand how people can believe that.
I have a testimony, I live a life in a way that works to embrace diversity and tolerance yet I have a testimony and if I choose to speak of that testimony then I am responsible for hate crime and bills being legislated to kill gays in foreign countries !? And anybody else to teaches that change is possible … ie Exodus …
It’s stupid, the activists take things totally out of context and people not even involved in the controversy to begin with have people trying to drag them in …
Yeah, didn’t Hitler do that with the Jews? Taking something out-of-context is one thing… but using it to steer the laws of the land and the authorities granted to run the land… now we have an even bigger problem.
For the record, I believe that the abuse of anyone due to their sexual feelings is absurd and violates the very concept of Love. However, identifying a behavior as wrong does not constitute violence. These guys are taking WAY too far!
I agree totally … I think Hitler did do that but what’s beyond me is how people are comparing Exodus to Hitler and holding Exodus accountable for what’s happening in Uganda.
It is proven though that people hurt in relationship often do hurt people in relationship … I’m not sure if any of us is exempt from that but people take this to the extreme, lable and develop their opinion based on heresay rather than what is actually being done and said.
Yes, Randy, I totally agree. Sadly, Rachel Maddow dodged the real issue at hand, and in addition to that, most of her supporters and pro-gay advocates thought that she did a wonderful job on slamming the “ex-gays.” I would have to agree, she did do an amazing job in trying to silence someone who disagrees with her, but unfortunately she did nothing in trying to stop this terrible bill from becoming a reality. She turned the entire interview into a “bash-the-opposing-view-no-matter-what,” when she could have used that vital air time to collaborate with Richard Cohen on how to stop this legislation from becoming law.
yay! Kirk commented! Thank you for adding your thoughts Kirk.
Of course you human excremets wilol attack Rachel Maddow, because she has shown how Christian hate groups, inckuding yours have had influence. in ALL nhuman rights attacks agaisnt gays in Asia and Africa. Christians have defended murders, executiopns and mutilations of gays in muslim countries and Exodus has been part of the hate campaign. Now you attack Maddow for exposing what you are all about.
Randy you’re a pathetic liar. You are backpedaling on this onbly because you got caught. had no one cared, you would happily approved killings of gays in Afreica. I know it and you know it.
I hope that some day your fate be similar than that of gay men in Africa. Precisely the same.
Leo, you couldn’t be more wrong about Randy and people like him. Your words are evidence of the blind and (dare I say) ignorant attitude that many (but not all) in the gay community have toward people who believe homosexuality to be wrong. Randy is genuine, and there so MANY people like him who have a very real story to share, and a compelling, articulate, and comprehensive world-view on sexuality and morality.
How can you say things like this when, if you read up on Randy’s testimony, he has been on both sides of the fence? Would he only be correct if he accepted your point of view as gospel? Are YOU above the rest of the world when it comes to how to approach the sexuality/morality debate? If I were you, I’d look for some common ground and have a discussion. Your response to this post was akin to walking up to a stranger and shoving him in the chest based on what little you knew about him. And believe me, you know “little” about Randy, thus far.
Please, please, please… give the man some credit. He’s not working with Exodus ministries just because he needs a job or something. What’s happened in Randy’s life is huge, and is the same as so many other people. What’s shameful is that the louder voices of the GLBTQ community aren’t giving any respect to those who have differing views, and experiences, from their own.
And, for the record… I have a tendency to call those with more conservatives views on the carpet when I hear tones of hatred and disgust toward those with same-sex attractions. That is just as hurtful to the solution as anything else!
Mike, thank you my friend. I appreciate your comment. It is very encouraging.
Leo … I thought you went by the name of Boris?
Stop with the direct threats of death, torture and imprisonment and attacking me personally and I might let your future comments through.
All major and credible science shows that people cannot change their orientation,Instead of trying to follow Christs teaching and love your neighbors as he loves you,you constantly try to change and in your minds improve upon his works.I bvelieve our destinies were in the book for millinia,and to try and alter his work is blasphemous.I am a gay man,46yrs old,raised in a good and loving family,Have known I was gay since I was a child,My family suspected and tried the various forms of straightening me.But finally had to come to the conclusion that you cannot straighten something that is not bent in the first place with out damaging the original.Until you people realize that people are indeed born gay,You will never be able to minister to them.Your ingnorant way of dealing with gay people and children has killed many and what does the bible say about someone with the blood of a child on their hands. Wake up and Love everyone equally.Celebrate the diviersity and allow us the sacrement of marriage so that we can have loving stable homes that can and will produce and help raise the next generation in the loving way Christ meant for us all to enjoy.
Ricky,
I agree with you that those who think that homosexuality can be simply ‘fixed’ have a painfully limited view of the issue at hand. However, I disagree that we as Christians should embrace the practice. Your response gives no credibility toward those who have made very hard decisions about how to live, despite their sexual attractions to people of the same sex. In fact, you’re completely dismissing their stories altogether with your solution. I know that not all people end up making the same choices when it comes to same-sex attractions. But writing-off those who have decided to pursue holiness despite their sexually deviant attractions is part of what’s so damaging to the public debate on this topic. It’s like refusing to acknowledge their existence altogether. The GLBTQ community doesn’t like it when churches and conservative groups outright ‘deny’ the validity of their feelings, so the same goes both ways, my friend.
Mike, I see your point, and I agree. But, when so many people that are not in favor of gay relationships flippantly tell gay people that they should, or need to, either “change” or live celibate lives as if it’s some simple task (and let’s be honest asking a gay person to be celibate is nothing the same as telling a non-married straight person to wait until marriage for sex), it has the same chilling effect.
And, I might add, using the term “sexually deviant attractions” doesn’t do much to help healthy debate, either.
Brady makes a good point references the quote above. The statement implicitly states that those who choose not to attempt to change their sexual orientation are deviant(ie sinful, evil). These type of comments add nothing to the exchange on the topic. It only serves a divisive nature.
With regards to the interview being discussed…Rachel Maddow did make a dig towards the end of the interview that seemed low(bringing up his married indiscretions) but in all fairness, he brought his marriage into the interview first. He made it fair game although I still wish she wouldn’t have brought it up.
And I disagree with many of the posters that have suggested she accomplished nothing to help defeat the bill in Uganda. She was able to expose the inherent falsehood his books promote that those in Uganda are using to promote the legislation. Anyone that would include “race” as a potential cause for homosexuality should be exposed for what he/she is.
Maybe I have missed it but has Mr. Cohen retracted the false statements in his book to the public debate in Uganda? Has he come out to state that race isn’t part of the equation? Has he come out to denounce the “research” he uses in his book that he stated wouldn’t be in his 3rd edition? If indeed, these comments aren’t retracted in a bold and definitive manner then I would suggest that Ms. Maddow is right…he does have blood on his hands.
Brady,
deviant: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
Part of the problem with this whole issue is that homosexuality is not permitted to be referred to as deviant, which it is. Even in a blog comment. Anything that makes homosexuality seem less-than or unnatural in ANY part of the public sphere is frowned upon and permitted to be mistaken for hatred, and almost always altered to favorably portray homosexuality. The word “gay” itself is a smokescreen in front of the truth, excused as politeness. Can you kind of see how this is also unfair to healthy and truthful debate?
The problem with your thinking is that you have implied that deviant means wrong. Deviant means not an accepted norm; it has nothing to do with right or wrong in terms of a legal or ethical matter. Can you not see how this characterization of people as wrong, evil, sinful and unethical unfair to healthy and truthful debate?
Joe- I have to agree with Mike on this one. Using the word deviant in that context, and in the sexuality debate altogether surely implies that it is wrong, sinful, evil, etc. (Blame the Fred Phelps and sandwich-board protesters if you like, but that’s the connotation).
You can refer to homosexuality as deviant all you want, but my point was about having open discussion and debate without bringing in a level of superiority/inferiority from one side to another. As long as we use those types of tactics, discussion is surely going to be stifled.
The word gay on the other hand, while it has a historical usage of meaning happy or joyful, in today’s usage clearly means attracted to the same sex. If you are claiming that just using the term gay deters from healthy debate, but then are trying to defend using the word deviant, I think your bias might be showing a bit.
Dear Mike and Brady,
Homosexual sex acts are indeed wrong, sinful and evil. That’s kind of the point. If we’re not allowed to say that, then rational discussion is muzzled right from the starting gate.
Joe- fine if you believe that. But, don’t go off getting all mad and blaming the evil gay activists when they respond to you with the same tone. There are many people out there, as Randy has shared, that believe that groups like Exodus and words like yours have led directly to the deaths of many people. I don’t agree with them, but they believe that. Their conviction is just as strong as yours. Can you see how if they used that conviction in every conversation they had with a Christian, it might not go anywhere? That debate and discussion would be haulted before it even started?
Like I said, believe and say what you want, but don’t go blaming the other side when you don’t think you are getting honest, open debate. You can disagree without stifling debate.
And for the record (in case it’s not clear)–I disagree with your view of gay relationships. If you notice, though, I can say I disagree without calling you or your beliefs evil or sinful (and that’s kind of my point).
Brady,
Cool – we have a disagreement. There is no way to discuss our disagreement if we cannot both state our position. I think homosexual sex acts are deviant. Remember, we are here on Exodus’ blog – not on the Rachel Maddog show. If I am not allowed to say homosexual sex acts are deviant here, then it’s not worth me coming here to “talk” to you.
Joe,
You can say it is “deviant” but to be very clear. I don’t find that productive, gracious or loving. And I don’t think you have to “tip-toe” to be productive, gracious or loving AND honest. The gay community is FULLY aware of what we believe is a true biblical sexual ethic. By you tenaciously holding on to that you come across as hard hearted, not listening and willing to put your personal need to defend your position with harsh rhetoric rather than meeting others where they are at.
I did not come to Christ, or even want to, when Christians called me a deviant sinner.
Mike T.
We need to be very careful when using the term deviant. In this context you are stigmatizing the whole homosexual community as deviant, when all forms of sexual acts outside of marriage are inappropriate and are considered outside of the norm based on a biblical understanding of sexuality. So let’s not single out the homosexual community in this regard.
In re-reading Mike T.’s response, I cannot help thinking how thin-skinned some are being here about a passing comment. The words were absolutely true anyway – “sexually deviant attractions”. Maybe you don’t like the phrasing, but come on how many ways are there to say this idea that are not offensive. Sometimes your feet get tired of tip-toeing and you just want to say your thought and move on in order to get to the truth of what you are trying to say. This is the thing – homosexual apologists are not interested in the truth. If you admit the most foundational truth, that homosexuality is deviant, we can move forward. If not, we really can’t. What will happen is what has already happened – homosexuality will be presented as normal, like being left-handed. And young men will continue to die needlessly of AIDS because they were taught that they had a right to engage in a normal activity. Who has blood on their hands again?
Randy, #1 – nobody called anybody a deviant sinner. The SIN was what was under discussion, not any individual sinner. Many people find those 2 different things impossible to separate. Perhaps you yourself have that problem sometimes I guess that is understandable.
With all due respect, this blog entry you made is commenting on Uganda’s laws, not how you came to Christ. Do you get that people are d y i n g ?? because of homosexual sex acts ? That is what the bill outlaws. Homosexual sex ACTS, not people. This is bigger than just the interests of your ministry. It’s public policy as well as saying clearly what is right and what is wrong. The Ugandans seem to be able to see that – do you? They’ve already modified their law to decrease the punishment, but they refuse to back down on saying what is wrong. You think the gay community gets the Christian position and we will just have to agree to disagree there. Homosexual sex acts are in fact deviant, and that was only mentioned in a passing comment when people went ballistic. There’s a difference between a passing comment here and what we might say in a real life situation to a sensitive person. There’s times to sugarcoat things and there’s times when that is a serious mistake. You think I am coming across hard hearted and I think you people are making a big deal about one phrase that was used properly but ruffled your feathers and REALLY “Missing the Point Aboue Uganda”. When people put easily hurt feelings ahead of drawing legal boundaries around acceptable sexual behavior, people continue to die needlessly. I’m sad and disappointed that your organization has been duped into helping perpetuate that by using your name and influence to oppose this law in a foreign country where you yourself admitted in another thread that you do not even have much of a ministry connection – and perhaps not much comprehension either.
Hmmm… I make one comment and you decide to attack myself and Exodus. I don’t have feathers but I wasn’t upset about your comment and not going to let you offend me in this latest one.
You ask if I “…get that people are dying??” Yeah I do Joe … I have seen more people than I ever wanted to see die because of HIV. Your patronizing question is definitely an example of the hard hearted tone I’ve seen in your comments. HIV isn’t just about homosexual sexual behavior.
Truly, thank you for sharing your thoughts but we have reached the end of having a potentially helpful dialog along these lines. You are welcome to submit comments but I am going to do what you probably expected and heavily moderate what I allow from you to come through. Probably should have done so before now.
Ok… after a few minutes, I was harsh myself to say you were “attacking” me. I misread your comment about my being “confused” sometimes.
I still think your reactions indicate a hard heart toward this issue, I did find that one part of your comment patronizing.
The only thing I would add is that I think it is unfair to expect that those who identify as gay to contextualize or even conceptualize a dialog as “honest” and open the way you do. It is what it is.
Ricky,
You stated, “Until you people realize that people are indeed born gay,You will never be able to minister to them.” Not to step away from the importance of the Ugandan story, but can you please direct me to the exact study or research that proves people are born gay? I, and millions of others, have been looking for some time but haven’t found any evidence that homosexuality is caused by only one factor.
Thanks.
You said,
“Your ignorant way of dealing with gay people and children has killed many and what does the bible say about someone with the blood of a child on their hands …”
This is what I’m talking about when others take other people’s words and actions out of context, twisting them, and then saying their actions and words are responsible for it … my friend who should be held accountable should and aught to be the one taking words and actions out of context and then using that for their own gains and purposes.
You said,
“wake up and love everyone equaly. Celebrate the diversity.”
I would suggest that the one who makes the choice to walk away from homosexuality and experience change should be included in that diversity and to being loved and acknowledged just as much as those in the GLBTQ community. I would suggest that my feelings and testimony should and aught to be acknowledged or at least heard along with your feelings and testimony. And it would be nice to be able to share this testimony without being verbally assaulted.
Randy- I’ll agree with you that Maddow’s interview with Cohen didn’t seem to do much to help the situation in Uganda (other than being the first national news person to talk about it at length as far as I know). But, yes, she did not do much, or anything at all, to help the situation there.
However, I’m not sure that was the point of her piece (and this goes to where I think I disagree with you). The point of her piece seems to be to show the situation in Uganda to a national audience and then to point out that she believes Richard Cohen and others are at least partially to blame. And, if that was the point, she stayed on message. She’s not a journalist–she’s just like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck–a pundit, not a journalist. And, just like them, she gives her opinion and goes for the jugular with dissenting guests (I see Hannity and O’Reilly do this regularly).
So, if your problem is that she isn’t being impartial here, you are right. If you’re problem is that she’s unfair to her guest at times, I can see where you’re coming from. But, I really can’t see any difference at all with what she is doing over what any of the big right-wing pundits do too. Rush Limbaugh has made a career of it.
It’d be nice if this type of shock television wasn’t around. It’d be nice if we could trust what everyone’s real intentions are. But, without going off on a criticism agains the genre as a whole, I don’t see how this particular interview deserves special criticism or is much different from the others.
Thanks Brady and I think we are on the same page but from what I understand … all of those conservative pundits say they are not journalists. My understanding is that Maddow believes and presents herself as a journalist.
Regardless, she can do what she does anyway she wants. Its her show. My post covered a lot of ground with questioning her tactics and actual helpfulness only being one aspect.
It deserves special attention because she is blaming the view that sexual orientation can change is inspiring the murderous bill. She is falsely stigmatizing people just like many people on the right used to stigmatize gay people.
Randy- if she’s trying to claim she is a journalist, then that’s just silly. Unless she also claims Rush, Hannity, and the others are also journalists, at which point she must have a different definition of journalist than you and I.
Regarding her blaming the view that sexual orientation ca change as inspiring the bill…I see where your displeasure comes from. I think I’ve beaten my comparison of her and right-wing pundits to death, but I get equally irrate when Rush compares Obama to Hitler and Stalin (or when left-wingers counted the number of soldiers Bush had “killed.”).
Randy, you pitiful sissy. When your lies and the connections of Exodus to all the Christian hatemongering is even mentioned you “moderate” the posts. And you whine about lkack of “discussion”?
Christians like you are backing EVERY single anti-gay act in this countryu and now you are exproting your venom. Moderate this or not, I know you are a liar and a fraud and so do you.
Surround yourself with your sycophants and other liars. It’s easier to justify your venom and hatered when you’re surrounbded by people who praise you for it.
I wish you same fate gays face in Africa. Precisely the same fate.
We fight true homophobia whenever wherever it arises. To say I disagree with you would be an understatement. You aren’t the only person we hear from and I actually have quite a few friends, who identify as gay, who I discuss things with.
They are intelligent, helpful and I am grateful for them. I pray you get past whatever it is that makes you wish I would be tortured, imprisoned and sentenced to death. I am really not that scary.
Regardless, your future comments probably won’t be approved if they continue along these lines.
Mr. Leo Walla it is kind of interesting to read your not so humble nor respectful lines addressing my friend Randy, and it makes me think on how biased and ignorant your views are when talking about an organization and its people that are offering an alternative, a light of hope to those who just want to change their lives because they are not happy the way the are, period. There is no hidden agenda about it. Now if you are going to comment hatefully and threat, and wish death upon someone who is just as free to say what is on his mind I would say that your are not so far off from those anti-gays in Uganda who want to execute homosexuals. You are just debauching perfectly sane points of view with unhealthy bigotry and so much hate, which I do not understand how you justify it. It is utter madness!
Tolerance. That is certainly an “it” word in today’s society. People attack Randy and ministries like Exodus calling them awful things and accusing them of promoting hate and being intolerant. However, if you did any research on Randy or Exodus, you would know that hating homosexuals is the last thing on earth they are trying to promote. You ask us to respect your right to live the homosexual lifestyle, which Exodus does, so why aren’t the people who have chosen to walk away given the same respect? It isn’t right to deny a person the right to live the life they feel Christ has called them to live.
It isn’t right to deny a person the right to live the life they feel Christ has called them to live.
It certainly isn’t, which is why I think many people are upset with Exodus for their previous support for public policy initiatives that would deny marriage rights to gay couples. I also am a same-sex attracted person who has decided to not act out homosexually. However, I’ve never received anything but tolerance from actively gay people. I think the difference is that I’m politically liberal and support gay rights.
Perhaps more importantly, I also don’t claim that gays are promiscuous, I don’t claim that they are going to Hell, I don’t claim that their relationships are unhealthy, or that they had broken childhoods and poor relationships with their parents. Many people affiliated with Exodus (in the past and the present) have said things that can be construed that way, and those views aren’t exactly tolerant because they do make assumptions and attacks upon gay people. There has been a lot of wrong done to both sides of this issue, by both sides. There are also a lot of good people on both sides, and I think it would be helpful if we all acknowledged both the bad and the good.
Marriage is not being denied to any one. Marriage has nothing to do with coupling (either heterosexual or homosexual). Marriage is about having children. Having children is so fundamental to marriage that even when two opposite sex people come together in a sinful union, often times children are created.
Heterosexual people get it wrong all the time and children suffer most because of it. We have made terrible legislative mistakes in giving legal support to heterosexual people who do not have their priorities in order. This has created such a difficult situation for all involved but more so for the children.
People of the same sex are not made to come together and create children. It is physically impossible. It is not that something is wrong with them, they are not made to produce children. Which is why it is not called marriage and why it should not be support legislatively as if it is equal.
College Jay and Jennifer,
I think what is needed is a more objective fact-based discussion on this in the public arena. I do agree with Jennifer that nobody is being denied marriage rights. Where I respectfully differ is I believe marriage is first and foremost about bringing the opposite sexes together, and children are the most fantastic blessing and benefit to society which often (but not always) result from these unions. So I see the purpose of marriage as 2-fold: bringing the 2 sexes of humanity together and also the necessary procreation society needs to survive and the family environments they need to thrive – with both a Mom(female) and Dad(male). I know some infertile couples and even an infertile married couple can model the norm for young people and the community because they are opposite sexes. No homosexual same-sex couple can build up society in this way. I believe some Marriage Revisionists might mean well but they start off with the erroneous belief that homosexuality is equal in value to heterosexuality, which is absurd on an objective level but that is their dogmatic underlying belief. They’ve been indoctrinated with this in universities and by the media. This is why Marriage Revisionists are trying to change the definition of marriage, which has always been heterosexual. They don’t like to admit this is about re-defining marriage though, because that’s a lot harder to sell, so they try to deny it’s about messing with and re-defining marriage by disguising their efforts with phrases such as “marriage equality”. They say they want both the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. They never get around to explaining why same-sex couples should get the exact same benefits of marriage when they cannot in any comparable way take responsibility for unplanned pregnancies that arise from their sexual activities as married people must do. This is non-trivial although they don’t realize that because they have no idea how much it costs in time and effort and money to raise a child for 18 years or even just be responsible for a child through child support payments. So it’s not equal rights for equal work. It’s a complete fraud. Yet millions of people have bought into it. What is needed is an organized, factual uncovering of the truth, unmuzzled by unfair censorship masquerading as politeness or political correctness. Rant complete - thanks for your patience if you’ve read this :-)
Well, I already know several gay couples who have children through adoption, and I know a handful of people who are the children of gay couples. Whether gay marriage is allowed or not, gay couples are going to have children. Single people are also going to adopt children. I know that if I remain unmarried, I do hope to eventually adopt. I have seen several people: gay, gay celibate, ex-gay, and heterosexual, adopt children and be successful, healthy single parents who raised healthy children.
Even if gay marriage isn’t allowed, the fact of the matter is that gay people are going to enter into partnerships and many are going to adopt children. Perhaps “marriage” is not the word for these partnerships, but some kind of civil union is necessary simply to provide the proper social and financial protections to these families and children.
Certainly this was a charged moment.
It is hard to make a comment at all because of the style of the interview (if you could call it an interview). Ms. Maddow makes a claim that Unganda’s official is using portions of Mr. Cohen’s book to justify their law to be able to physically harm people for homosexual behavior. In that she is correct. That is in fact what seems to be happening. That doesn’t make Mr. Cohen a co conspirator in this action. Misrepresentation of data is done all the time.
I do think that she did then go on to hijack the whole movement that supports change and threw them under the bus as well.
To his credit Mr. Cohen never did become defensive and accusatory and spent much of his time trying to re frame Ms. Maddow’s perspective. Unfortunately that is something that is not possible in a moment on a TV interview.
The situation in Uganda is sad. I pray that their government does not enact this legislation. It will cost many lives before they are able to understand that this is not the solution.
It seems to me that Ms. Maddow has been touched personally by homosexuality. Perhaps someone she deeply loves. It has taken all that she has to come to grips with a loved ones homosexuality. Thus Mr. Cohen represents a threat to Ms. Maddow. If what Mr. Cohen says is true, if a person can move away from homosexuality then all the personal struggle that she went through to come to grips with a loved one being homosexual is now opened up again. That is just to much. Thus she must protect her resolved place with all the passion she can muster.
Hi Jennifer- I believe Rachel Maddow is a lesbian herself.
Well, there you go. That is what I get for not watching more TV and being better informed. I guess it does lend creditability to what I said.
So what exactly were Don Schmierer of Exodus, Scott Lively et al. out in Uganda for?
Could someone kindly explain to me in simple unambigous words the purpose of their visit to that country?
Mr. Richard Cohen did an excellent job in a nationally televised situation where he was obviously in a hostile situation and on the hot seat. I say VERY WELL DONE. May God bless him for his courage and his clear thinking. It is difficult not to take a few hits in such a situation but he did an excellent excellent job. And whatever any liberal might think after watching this interview, I am sure God is pleased with his effort to bring the truth to light. May Rachel Maddow repent of any homosexual practices she is involved with and may she come to a full knowledge and commitment to Jesus Christ and obtain eternal salvation through Him. Then we will all be friends forever – IN TRUTH. :-)
You have arbitrarily decided that a liberal(and whatever else you mean with this term) can not have truth. Thanks for being willing to discuss.
“Then we will all be friends forever – IN TRUTH. :-)”
I’m really not trying to over generalize here, but you are essentially saying that unless someone agrees with me, we can’t be friends.
Nice.
I apologize for my poor phrasing Mike. I did not intend to say we could not be friends. I fully support Mr. Cohen and was trying to convey that.
a massive shame that the plight of Ugandan homesexuals wasn’t given higher priority and more air time
also a shame that so many of us followers of Jesus have not learned yet to really listen to each other’s hearts and put love first, regardless of whether we agree or not. I’m speaking to myself…
This is quite a thread. While such discussions are interesting and hopefully helpful, at the end of the day there is only one question that matters. It is a question the Lord Jesus asks of Peter, “Who do you say I am?”
If you don’t kick out every viewpoint that does’nt agree with you,you may learn something,Put up my last comment,Until then,Know that I am monitoring the comments and directing as many people as I can to this site to see what a ridiculous bunch of people you are.You cannot squelch dissent,and hope to have any sort of honest debate.What you are doing is dictatorial.
Ricky, read our comments policy. Your comments bash us and our beliefs … unbelievably hostile would be the description I would give to most of the comments you have submitted.
Dictatorial? … It’s a private publication not a public service. “Squelch dissent?” Have you googled any topic concerning us lately? There isn’t any squelching of dissent going on.
Monitor all you want. You can submit your comments all you want. I read them all except when I am on vacation. Refer people all you want … thanks for the web traffic.
Now, getting back on topic …
Wow! People have a lot to say. Hmmm, do I?
First off, I’m so overjoyed to be a Christian. Second, I’m glad to be gay. Third, I’m glad to be celibate because growing up, I never respected women, so I would have been a physically abusive partner, and I would have been extremely promiscuous, searching only for my physical needs to be met, not caring about the other women, and taking advantage of vulnerable women. I’m so glad my faith helped me to not be that person.
Next, Randy Thomas is an excellent person. I met some Episcopalian Americans (left wing Christians) in France this year, I mentioned Randy’s name, and they all but got out the crucifix and garlic. I said, “No, he’s actually a very fun guy”, and they couldn’t relate, cos what they’d read in the press, and what I was saying were two very different things. I’ve met Randy, and he’s ace. And this is coming from an angry person who has experienced much homophobia, both in the workplace – I’ve lost several jobs because I’m gay, and in the street. Don’t believe paranoia and what you read in the Media. Arrange to meet Randy for youself. Go for coffee with him. Find out for yourself.
I don’t believe that Rachel Maddow has helped anything, except produce more paranoia in the world. But wow! You guys have an openly gay female journalist/pundit! Wow! We could only hope and dream of that over here in the Uk! She has achieved much, to get where she is as a gay woman. The Media is often not accepting of gay women – as well as Randy Thomas and Exodus – so I take my hat off to her. But, she needs to get more focussed and not seek to deliberately misrepresent people if she is going to remain credible.
Then again, Richard Cohen has not helped himself in some parts of the conversation, and in his book. But I believe that despite not representing himself properly, I believe he is a good man.
And language and the meaning of language has moved on, and both Rachel and Richard need to understand that. ‘pervert’ and ‘deviant’ used to mean anything away from gentle heterosexual consensual sex. Now it can mean ‘paedophile’, ‘rapist’ or someone into really off the wall stuff. We need to move on as language moves on, and recognise its modern meaning.
And finally, I guess I’m gonna be writing to my local representative here in the UK about the Ugandan situation, because murder of any sort is wrong. The Bible says so. Murdering someone because they are gay or for any other reason, is also wrong. The Bible says so.
Take care and God bless you all, c-x-
thank you for your thoughtful reply and the encouragement.
This has been a great discussion to hear from both sides. I’m a mom who has learned that her three older children have same sex attractions. I am devastated and in tears writing this. I have raised them in the Christian faith, but have had a husband who has struggled with many wordly addictions. I’m not perfect as I’ve had to \deal\ with my dysfunctional family. I have to say being brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong and literally disgusting doesn’t make this new road I’m on very easy. But I know God is my strength as He led me to attend a Love Won Out conference. It has helped me to love people as God’s children and that this is a \sin\ as any other such as fornication, adultery, addictions, etc. I was a deviant sinner myself before I came to Christ. So, I’m not better nor superior than any drug addict, alcoholic, homosexual or otherwise. I love my children and treat them with respect. They in turn respect me and do not openly flaunt their lifestyles in front of me. I understand that when we’re sinning we’re in darkness and we do not like when the light exposes us. This is why some of you who have commented are so angry and want to be accepted as \normal\. Your darkness is being exposed. But please understand, it is only because some of us have found the truth that God has such a better plan for you! He has something much more enjoyable for you then your same sex attraction. Its true! I know its hard to believe it right now because lets face it, sin is enjoyable. If it wasn’t we would never have these problems. Also know that the sin we selfishly indulge in hurts other people in our lives! Please forgive me as I’m a mother venting right now. I Love each and every one of you and I pray fervently that you will learn to trust in God that He can and will keep you on a \straight\ and narrow path, if you ask. It will be worth it He promises.
I believe the journey of walking out of homosexuality starts by the conviction of the Holy Spirit in our lives and then a growing desire for more of God then to embrace a lesbian or gay relationship. Certainly it was more to do with being confused then it was about enjoying the sin in my life. I actually didn’t enjoy sin and that in part is what drew me closer to God. I grew up in a small town, surrounded by the Christian Community and spent most of my life in the church and my relationship with Jesus that remained even in my darkest of times is what drew me closer to God and away from the gay community. And my problems were and never were rooted in my enjoyment of sin but that said, I found something you said really encouraging .. “I Love each and every one of you and I pray fervently that you will learn to trust in God that He can and will keep you on a \straight\ and narrow path, if you ask. It will be worth it He promises.” –Lisa, pray for me! Sometimes I could use more people praying for me.
Dear Sarah.
I will pray for you, too! You know that we all need each other, don’t you? God hears your prayers just as loudly as anyone’s, so maybe I could ask that you would pray for my daughter, A. who’s in a “bi-sexual” relationship right now. You could also pray for her partner, C. if you feel led to. It is encouraging to me that you said your struggle was about confusion, which I believe is my daughter’s as well. You are so right that she, in fact we all need to come to understand that no one of either gender can love or care for us like Jesus. Only the Holy Spirit convicting and dysfunctional relationships can prove it to us. This is what I pray for you, A and C. Please feel free to email me anytime at debj…@comcast.net.
Deb
Lisa, please forgive my skepticism, but if your story is true, although I cannot sympathize because I don’t have any children, I can imagine what it might feel like to hear such unexpected news. I guess all I can say is that I believe it is safe to entrust them to God, and hope you believe so as well. I am sure you know that some prayers are answered many many years later, in His time, not ours. One person has said God will use whatever it takes to bring people to Himself….I’m still not comfortable with that word whatever. But I love the part about Him bringing people to Himself!
Yes gay identified people do have children. They have them from either their heterosexual relationships prior to moving into the gay life or they occasionally adopt them. In either case the children are legally provided for already.
In the case of gay couple adoption, not from the legal standpoint, it is still not marriage. If you have two women, there is one woman (usually biological but also the primary nurturer) who is the mom and the other women is another adult figure but not a 2nd mom. A father is now missing in this situation. The child is being raised in a situation that is not the best for them.
If you have two men then one becomes the father and the other man is another adult figure but not the mother. No matter how much you may want two people of the same sex to become the mom and dad, it is not possible. Children will not bond to two people of the same sex as if they are mom and dad. Children are just not wired that way. In either case there is a huge deficit for the child. The same sex household becomes like a single parent household with another adult to help with the duties of the house.
The question here is, is it marriage? It is not. It is a coupling, not a marriage. While I understand a persons desire to have and raise children, having raised (ing) five of my own, it is naive to move towards having children without looking at what is best for them. It is amazingly difficult to raise children with a man and woman who are committed to each other and the raising of their children. There is no other commitment that a person will make that will last as long or be as difficult and challenging as the raising of their children.
Yes single people do raise well adjusted children who can function well society. They are the exception and not the rule. Even two people in a marriage who are not committed to one another and the raising of the children have much less success raising their children to function well in society. It is well established by many ways and means that the best environment to raise children in is the basic family unit with a mom and a dad committed to one another and the raising of their children.