CNN will be airing various segments today concerning GLBT issues, including the ex-gay angle. If you can only watch one thing, try to catch Paula Zahn Now at 8pm ET.
Paula Zahn Now examining the complexities of gay and straight lifestyles, and whether a gay person can be “turned straight.” As part of her nightly feature segment Out in the Open, anchor Paula Zahn speaks with several members of the “ex-gay movement,” which consists of gay individuals who say they became straight. Paula Zahn Now airs weekdays from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Those interviewed for this segment include Exodus president Alan Chambers and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, both of whom occasionally comment at XGW.
I humbly request someone record this and post it somewhere, so I can watch it- I don’t have cable TV. Thanks!
Zahn’s premise is ridiculous MSM ratings fodder. Gays talk all the time about turning straight men gay. It’s part of the conceit that that subculture cultivates.
Jeremayakovka,
What the heck are you talking about?
Where does Paula Zahn put forth a premise that suggests gay men do or do not want to “turn straight men gay?” And for that matter, where is your evidence that “gays” all talk about that (or anything in particular)? I’ve personally never heard anything like it beyond a statement in jest. Are there ex-straight programs somewhere that I haven’t heard about?
“the heck” = campy chit-chat on the Castro. Maybe you need to get out more….
Well that certainly cleared things up.
Emily, one way or the other I’m sure a recording will be available.
LOL David! 🙂
OK, it’s a scandal that’s going to break any moment now so I’ll confess here first.
I went through an ex-straight program. And I’m among the 30% who claim to have successfully left the heterosexual lifestyle. I’ve even been interviewed for national magazines.
But (and I’m so ashamed) some militant straight activist photographed me running away from a Hooters last weekend. I swear, I only stopped in to used the phone and eat some hot wings.
Timothy: Ha-ha
David: Can’t tell if your last reply is sarcastic.
EGW (generally): Just updated my post on Exodus’s Freedom Conference with a mention of the Ex-Gay Survivors’ Conference. Had never heard of an “ex-ex-gay” movement before this morning.
I went through an ex-straight program. And I’m among the 30% who claim to have successfully left the heterosexual lifestyle. I’ve even been interviewed for national magazines.
Is there any possibility you could be available to help me stage an intervention with Katee Sackhoff?
There are some girls out there I wanna get into an ex-straight program 😉
David: Ok, thanks for your reassurance.
I think they ruined the show with that Paris Hilton interview in the middle of the program. I don’t think Larry King would interrupt his show to talk about sexual oriention or gender identity.
Favorite quote of the night was keep god out of it. I like how they had two pro panelists and one anti panelist. Yeah his wife had to tell him that he was straight. As for Alan Chamber’s he states something about not having fantasies or temptations. I mean come on what man doesn’t have them? Should of been more personal. Less on Paris Hilton!
We’re bogged down in a war, the economy is tanking, our government is incompetent at every level, but the media just can’t find enough journalists to cover Paris Hilton.
Did Alan really make the claim that he doesn’t suffer from same-sex temptations? That seems to contradict several statements he has made over the last month which suggested he still does suffer from them and feels like he probably always will.
From the rushed transcript, the part on gays/exgays only,
https://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/27/pzn.01.html :
There followed a commentary on this report with Zahn and three guests:
It seems to be all the same to me, news reports all want black and white and instead they all end up grey.
It was a train wreck from where I was sitting. Statistics were wrong, terminology badly botched, transgendered and gay issues were intertwined in a way that was confusing and, while he may be perfectly charming for all I know, Sean Kennedy didn’t belong there. They had access to so much and did such a poor job; it was just disappointing.
Ditto David.
Paula spent more time talking of how controversial the subject of homosexuality is than actually discussing the subject. A bunch of shallow soundbites designed to sell pharmaceuticals to people, not explore or inform people. A “train wreck” would have been more informative and entertaining to watch.
Whoa! We should expect these shows to be useless and be glad they aren’t even worse. Some possitives:
I’m glad they covered transexuals, even though in muddled the gay issue a bit, since this topic deserves a lot more attention. The young schoolgirl spoke well for herself, and I was pleased how her parents provided her with thier full support.
Their resident guru explained the difference between gender identity and same sex orientation, so I hope at least some viewers understood what she said.
Paula kept saying “sexual preference” which was irksome.
When the word cure was mentioned, I looked down and saw it was in quotes. Good for them.
Reshowing “unnamed person” (that’s a nice touch) whacking away at those pillows with his tennis racket was really a hoot. We couldn’t pay someone to make a fool of himself like that. Glad they repeated it for their viewers.
The last word was information about how the AAP comdemns reparative therapy. I hope this sticks in peoples minds.
Bill,
I have to disagree.
They convoluted transexuality with homosexuality. While both are important discussions, it’s like having a segment on Apple iPhones and applesauce. It leaves the viewer confused.
And the resident expert defined both orientation and gender in terms of “choice”. This is not only inaccurate, it’s more harmful than helpful.
So, I’m in the camp that says “train wreck”.
However…
I was encouraged both by what Alan said and by what Warren said.
Alan clarified that his “desire to be involved” is not the same thing as his temptations or his attractions. And that is a good thing.
He did not say that he’s “former” or not same-sex attracted, but that he doesn’t want to be involved with homosexuality or someone of the same sex. That’s an improvement and I want to give him credit.
So too did Warren distinguish between changing orientation and personal choices to “live in alignment” with “core beliefs”.
Indeed, if the ex-gay movement were to adopt this language more regularly – and get out of politics – there would be little to fault them. We could disagree about theology or about what is helpful v. harmful, but that is a quite different matter than dishonesty or religious oppression via secular law.
So was I, that was some of the most important stuff in there and they gave Throckmorton maybe 5 seconds and Alan less than a minute. The guy from the Advocate got ten times that and I still don’t know why.
Ditto on the rest as well.
Alan clarified that his “desire to be involved” is not the same thing as his temptations or his attractions. And that is a good thing.
To me it looked like he was talkng a bit out of both sides of his mouth again:
CHAMBERS: I have absolutely 100 percent no desire to be involved in homosexuality or be with someone in the same sex. That’s different than temptation, it’s different then attraction, but I’m not gay.
FEYERICK (on camera): There are critics who will say all you’ve succeeded in doing is suppressing your real sexual urges.
CHAMBERS: I challenge anyone to say what I have isn’t authentic and it isn’t real, because no one can say that.
He didn’t quite deny it outright, but if he’s acknowledged in a roundabout way that he still has attractions to guys, then yes, he is just suppressing his sexual urges. It may be “real” to him in the sense that not acting on his urges is a real change he’s happy having made, but the way he answers Feyerick seems designed to create the impression that he’s done more than suppress his sexual urges, which he’s just admitted is all he’s done.
Of course I’m just going off the transcript, was this clearly a one on one conversation?
PS: I like the sweet edit countdown clock.
tic toc!
With all due respect, clarify and Alan Chambers do not belong in the same sentence. The more this man says, the more confused I am about what he means or doesn’t mean, etc.
It’s ridiculous that CNN would invite The Advocate to speak at all. It’s the People Magazine of gay entertainment — hardly a source of intelligent research and news.
yes, i can’t imagine that anyone who ever wrote anything for the Advocate would know anything about this subject. Ahem.
Tim,
I realize that reviewing a show like this is like dumpster diving, trying to find a few items of value amongst all the trash, so I would try to emphasize the few good points and let the trash collector deal with the rest.
We sure do live in exciting times, though, don’t we?
lol PW,
I understand what you mean, there have been times when reading and listening to Alan that I thought he was equivocating. But, I don’t really think so. My read is he is being sincere and trying to be honest, for which I give him kudos. He’s in a tough place, he heads Exodus for goodness sake! If God would just give him a magic staff like he gave to Moses, he could part the Red Sea and we could all walk into the promised land. Alan is not touting magic (read: “instant”) ‘deliverance.’ Instead, he talks of process (the “wilderness?”). So, on the one hand, you have “Christians” claiming that the God of the bible (the one who did miracles and stuff) is the God of today, and then you have some other “Christians” who are a bit more honest and admit they’ve never seen “God” restore a missing limb or “cure” ssa. Not only does Alan have to contend with those who still claim that God restores missing limbs and cures ssa, in addition he has to deal with people who say that this same God simply loves and accepts people with missing limbs and ssa. It’s a difficult course to navigate, especially since everything hinges on belief and not evidence that could, er, demand a verdict and “clarify.”
It’s a difficult course to navigate, especially since everything hinges on belief and not evidence that could, er, demand a verdict and “clarify.”
The “course” seems to be between telling the truth and not telling the truth, so he tries to split the difference by fudging. The truth seems to clearly be that he is still attracted to men but chooses not to act on it for religious reasons, and Exodus counseling helps him stay on the path he has chosen. If that’s how he finds meaning in his life, more power to him, but pandering to the right wing base who want to hear fantasies about gay people magically becoming straight is still lying.
We sure do live in exciting times, though, don’t we?
yes indeed we do.
But isn’t “May you live in exciting times” an ancient Chinese curse?
Boo,
The “course” does seem that way, no? To me too. You’ll note I couldn’t bring myself to say Alan is being honest, rather, “trying to be honest.” I do think he’s sincere though. I would guess he really has faith in what he believes and therefore bases some of his statements on ‘hope,’ perhaps making his hopes future truths in his mind?
To me, Alan seems to be distinguishing what he believes from magic, which has caused him a bit of trouble with the magicians. I think that’s progress. At some point he may see that he is doing all the work, giving “God” the ‘credit’ and at that point may ask, why?
A good question to ask, and answer, by my estimation.