Libertarian pundit and veteran ABC investigative reporter John Stossel upset the nation’s handful of exgay activists in 2004 when he interviewed both exgays and ex-exgays, and concluded that the exgay movement consists of only a handful of ideological activists who are abandoned at a steady pace by people who say the movement failed to “change” them.
In a press release issued today, Exodus criticized Stossel for renewing his criticisms of the exgay political front. Stossel commented on exgays during a May 10 appearance on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor” to promote his new book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity : Get Out the Shovel–Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
Exodus quotes Stossel telling O’Reilly:
One of the myths is that you can change homosexuality. There are these groups like Exodus International that says, ‘We can fix you. If you just pray, if you turn your life over to Jesus, we can make you straight.’ And I’ve talked to lots of people who supposedly were cured and they were not.”
Exodus stops there, leading readers to believe Stossel denied the existence of exgays. But that’s a misquote by Exodus: Stossel did acknowledge the uneasy existence of some exgays, but O’Reilly cut Stossel off. Here’s the entirety of the on-air exchange about homosexuality:
O’REILLY: All right. Homosexuality. You have something in the book. What did you find out?
STOSSEL: One of the myths is that you can change homosexuality. There are these groups like Exodus International that says, “We can fix you. If you just pray, if you turn your life over to Jesus, we can make you straight.” And I’ve talked to lots of people who supposedly were cured. And they were not.
O’REILLY: All of them?
STOSSEL: No. That’s not fair. There were…
O’REILLY: Did you find any cures?
STOSSEL: We talked to one guy who said he was cured. He was not convincing. Their poster boy was caught in a gay bar, and I talked to lots of people who said they tried and…
O’REILLY: So you believe it’s biological and you can’t — you can’t change it?
STOSSEL: And who wants to be gay? You’re ridiculed during life. Nobody chooses this in America in this day and age.
O’REILLY: All right. That’s another stance. Now that will get the conservatives mad. So you got the liberals mad on global warming.
STOSSEL: I can’t win.
O’REILLY: And the conservatives mad on the gays.
In today’s press release, Exodus president Alan Chambers responded vaguely that there are “thousands of former homosexuals” but he makes no effort to substantiate the statistic.
Chambers also said “… Mr. Stossel did not accurately or adequately research this side of such an important social issue.” But Stossel did research the issue carefully with Chambers in 2004 — why didn’t Chambers provide evidence of “thousands” of exgays then?
My jaw hit the floor when I heard that the other night. I have always found Stossel rational. The transcript does not really do justice to the conversation. Stossel seemed with his body and language and intonation to suggest that the exgay movement was really silly. At least that is how I took it.
I find it funny that O’Reilly’s audience would be confronted by such honesty.
It’s noteworthy that John Stossel calls himself Libertarian but is against people changing their sexual activity to straight only. If some1 uses tobacco, is John Stossel going to be against them quitting tobacco? There are failures for people who try to quit tobacco, just as there are failures for people who try to quit homo & lesbian activities, but we must get them to quit their activities.
Even if it’s genetic, the medical dangers of homo & lesbian activities will always be there, such as the fact that there’s an incr. risk of certain cancers caused by it. It’s contradictory to call 1self a Libertarian as John Stossel does & then be against the right of people to change their sex lives to straight only.
I like Bill O’Reilly sometimes. I wish he would quit equating support for gay marriage with some secular progressive war on Christianity and the country (cuz that just plain wrong and crazy), and I wish his advice to gays wasn’t “go hide in the closet and you’ll be fine”, but on some things I agree with him. And he’s not a zealot – he will criticize the administration almost as often as he criticizes Democrats.
And he is no friend of the ex-gays. He pretty much mocked Stephen Bennett when he was a guest. This is from 9/3/2002:
O’REILLY: We live in a secular society. You’re a religious fanatic, with all due respect.
BENNETT: I am far from a religious fanatic.
O’REILLY: You’re a religious fanatic. Now you have a right to be that, and I even respect you for being a very, let’s say, devout man in your own way. Once you cross into the secular realm and start denying people rights, then I…
JohnStosselcontradicts at May 12, 2006 12:57 PM
First, I don’t think Stossel is “against the right of people to change their sex lives to straight only”. He figures that if that’s what they want to do, fine.
What he is against is people making bizarre claims that are not true. Aren’t you?
Second, he’s against passing legislation or taking other steps to interfere in gay people’s lives. Aren’t you?
Wouldn’t it be nice if ex-gay groups believed the same?
Unfortunately, the ex-gay groups support the right of people to “change their sex lives to straight only” but they are opposed to the right of people to keep their sex lives just as they are. And if gay people don’t change, Exodus et al argues that they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, shouldn’t be allowed to marry, shouldn’t be allowed to have consentual sex between long-term committed partners, should be subject to firing for being gay, etc.
Now who’s the libertarian? And who’s the fascist?
(in case you think I’m using to strong of a word, check out the definition at https://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascist )
And he’s not a zealot – he will criticize the administration almost as often as he criticizes Democrats.
His pattern of views don’t make much sense until you realize that he is mainly there for the entertainment value (i.e. money, which is fine), and in his case that means he plays the “concerned for the little guy” part as much as anything. If he has any deep convictions, I doubt we have heard them.
I generally like John Stossel, and find him to be more genuine.
David Roberts
I was at Borders and happened to see Stossel’s book, so I took a look at the section on exgays. He seemed to take an even harsher tone in the book. Some interesting things–he asks Alan Chambers if he is attracted to women. Chambers states something very revealing: he is attracted to his wife. He evaded the question. I imagine many straight guys still look even when married (I could be entirely wrong, but whole sitcoms are built on this premise). Stossel also addresses the thousand number issue–Exodus states that they do not have any documentation about numbers. As Stossel points out, a group like Exodus would be wise to keep track of numbers–so why don’t they? He said it was very easy to find people who failed exgay therapy though.
As far as JohnStosselcontradicts goes, cigarette smoking is always harmful. Being gay is not. You state there is an increase of certain types of cancers. Let me point out that sex with anyone can be dangerous–straight or gay. There are STDs that lead to cancers that are fairly exclusive to the straight community: HPV and clamidia (cervical cancer, sterility, etc). My sister, who was straight, got HPV her first time. She had to be checked every six months for cancer because of it. Sex can be dangerous regardless of orientation. It can also be very safe–I have been out for like 16 years, and I have never had any problems and never caught anything. To assume that smoking and gay sex are equivalent is unfair and not rational.
Some Guys Are Normal is more balanced than I was, in its analysis of both Stossel and Exodus.
Like other people, I dislike John Stossel’s reporting style, but no more so than that of other TV journalists. All TV news is pretty lousy these days.
What I find sadly ironic is that while a lot of the anti-gay groups out there, including ex-gays, like to quote statistics about how ‘dangerous’ it is to have gay sex, at the same time they are opposing medicine that will reduce those risks, like the HPV vaccine.
Over the last three decades, huge strides have been made in gaining acceptance of gays and lesbians in this society. Today, more than half of the society are at least somewhat accepting of people being open about their sexual orientation. This is, in large part, thanks to the growing number of people willing to ‘come out’ to family and loved ones, and I believe in some part thanks to the push for the acceptance of gay relationships. It is also the death knell of the ex-gay movement.
Most ex-gay therapists and organizations depend on a loathing of being openly gay. In order to ‘change’ people, they need people who want to be changed (or in the case of minors at least parents who want their kid changed regardless of their child’s opinions on the matter). As society becomes more and more accepting of gays and lesbians, there are fewer people who hate being gay enough to want to change.
With every day, that number continues to shrink and shrink and shrink…
A commenter has repeatedly posted unsubstantiated claims about sexual health risks, unsubstantiated allegations about celebrities, and unsubstantiated claims that NARTH successfully treats homosexuality.
Medical and scientific claims of any sort require reputable documentation; false claims, blind assertions and gossip are disruptive of constructive discussion and therefore are not acceptable at Ex-Gay Watch.
[Comment placed in moderation due to numerous violations of Ex-Gay Watch comment guidelines.]
“swissalps,” your comment contains a long series of unsubstantiated and strawman accusations against John Stossel, PFLAG, GLSEN, and the American Medical Association. You also make unsubstantiated associations between same-sex attraction and various STDs that are, in reality, associated with unprotected sex with multiple partners regardless of sexual orientation. And I recognized several of your unsubstantiated claims as originating from the discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
In summary, you provide not a single quotation or source to document your (mis)representation of the views of Stossel, PFLAG, GLSEN, the AMA, medical researchers, et al. Unsubstantiated accusations are not permitted at Ex-Gay Watch.
I have placed your comment in moderation. I will give you 48 hours to provide sources and links for each of your claims. (I would also prefer that you identify yourself by your actual name, and I will require that you provide a valid e-mail address.)
If you cannot substantiate each of your accusations, your comment will be deemed intentionally false and it will be permanently deleted.
If you can document each of your accusations from reliable sources, then please feel free to do so.
Michael:
I’ve provided my e-mail, to be fair.
1st of all, it’s VD or Venereal Disease-the old words are better. It’s predictable that you don’t want a dialogue but to proselytize your point of view.
As far as sexual orientation, that is a moot point. As far as I’m concerned, homosexual & lesbian activities must be prevented or people must be helped to quit, EVEN IF it’s inborn & EVEN IF orientation doesn’t change. As far as I’m concerned, it’s orthodox sex or no sex & I’m against sodomy & oral sex, straight or homo. I don’t know how to copy & paste the link but if you do a Yahoo search, you’ll find the 2005 Swedish study that shows that oral sex incr. risk of oral cancer. What the % is is unknown-perhaps it’s not that high but still I believe in preventing it.
With regard to sodomy, 1 need not be an expert to understand that if you put things up you know where, it’ll tear the lining, come into contact with blood & you know what thus incr. risk of piles, proctitis & an incr. risk of anal cancer. Even the AMA in its journals writes about proctitis, piles & anal cancer, so I’m not inventing anything new.
As I’m not a Christian, don’t give me the rerun about born again this or that, which John Stossel has implied on 20/20 & on an interview with Bill O’Reilly in May 2006. Groups like GLSEN & PFLAG consistently imply that it’s Religious Right Christians such as Rev. Lou Sheldon who are against h & l activities. I support mercy killing of the terminally ill & the handicapped if they choose, but don’t believe a Dr. is needed to do it. The Rev. Lou Sheldon opposes mercy killing, so the Religious Right argument doesn’t apply to me.
There are atheists who are against h & l activities. My parents came from India & while Hinduism is neutral on this topic, India as of 2004 has laws against h & l activities. I don’t know how to paste the link but do a search of laws in India & you’ll find it. China, Vietnam & N. Korea (Confucian, Taos, Christianity & Buddhism exist but are suppressed) also have laws against Homosexual & Lesbian activities, making them felonies & as you know, China, Vietnam & N. Korea suppress religions-atheism is the rule.
The point is that John Stossel’s implied message about Exodus was that the Religious Right is the only group who are against h & l activities. No, he didn’t directly say it on Bill O’Reilly’s show when he was interviewed in May, but that’s what he certainly implied. Has John Stossel ever discussed atheists & non-Christians who are against homosexual & lesbian activities?
The conclusion here is that John Stossel’s point of whether or not orientation’s inborn, learned, socioenvironmental or a combination of all is a moot point. Even if orientation doesn’t change, we believe that h & l activities must be prevented or changed to either straight activity or no activity. As far as what John Stossel has said about primates engage in h & l activities such as Bonobos formerly Dwarf or Gypsy Chimpanzee, it’s a bad justification to say that because something happens in nature people must emulate. Pythons cruelly kill their preys, as do crocodiles & Komodo Dragons, but we don’t emulate them as what Ozzy did in the 1980s when he bit the head off of a pigeon. I hope this clarifies my points.
Swiss,
You again failed to provide a single quote, link, or bibliographic reference to support your strawman arguments.
Instead, you put your own words in the mouths of Stossel (whom I find highly disagreeable, by the way), GLSEN, PFLAG, Bill O’Reilly, and the AMA. Without providing any evidence, you claim that those whom you dislike say disagreeable things. That’s not a very sincere method of dialogue.
Then, again without any direct quotations or bibliographic references, you claim that the AMA supports your views about homosexuality. But it doesn’t; the AMA wisely airs cautions about specific unprotected sexual acts which occur among people regardless of sexual orientation, acts which do not define or encompass same-sex attraction or behavior.
In particular, your obsession with excretory organs indicates a double standard — you disregard the regrettably high prevalence of anal sex among young heterosexuals — and it also indicates your ignorance of homosexual attractions and behaviors.
(I also find it bizarre that you would boast that you support mercy killing — personally, I don’t consider that a virtue.)
Until you demonstrate an ability and willingness to provide quotations, links and/or bibliographic support for your claims about your supposed allies and opponents, your comment privileges are suspended. Please contact us via e-mail if you ever get around to researching and documenting your concerns.
Moderator Note: a comment from “swissalps” was deleted from this thread just now, and from another thread posting under “kincaidisright.” This commenter has been warned concerning off topic posting and making claims not based in fact. This time he/she posted under two different names within 5 minutes of each other. This is obvious deception and will not be tolerated. This is a place for honest debate and other commenters have a right to know who they are addressing, whether by name or nickname, and consistently so.
That commenter is no longer welcome to post here.
David Roberts