Another episode proving why I think Rachel is the best interviewer on TV, she gave him plenty of time, was respectful, and yet unrelenting in presenting the facts.

On the substance, this interview lays bare the naivete of people who think they can innocently present their hateful ideology as a loving, altruistic concern for the well being of others.

On an array of issues, the soon to be implemented policy in Uganda is the inevitable result of deigning to know God thinks is best.

Way to go Rachel. I’m so happy Mediaite reported on this so I don’t have to watch your wretched show. The guy she interviews is obviously a total scumbag, and I’ve no doubt she brought him on so she could rip him a new one and feel good about herself. But he’s also a total nobody, and the only reason I will ever know his name is because he appeared on her show.

I can’t watch Maddow, Olbermann, Hannity or Beck because they refuse to use their gifts against people on their own side of a given issue. I was intrigued by this quote you used from Maddow:

“This is made up, fake authoritative stuff that in other countries is being taken as science.”

Hmmmm, sounds like she could use that argument against global warming. I don’t doubt she is smarter than the other three partisans I mentioned, but what’s the point in having a big brain if you can’t open your mind to the possibility that, once in a while, the other side might have a point and your side might be in the wrong?

It is funny how “open mindedness” is the rallying cry of gay people, until it applies to those with which they disagree.

Gay people like Maddow are truly close minded haters and bigots, because they refuse to even consider the concept of people becoming ex-gay. They are even more closed minded than the leaders from Uganda who want to kill gay people.

As much as Maddow wants to discredit the the concept of people becoming heterosexual after being gay, it has happened and still is happening.

^ Marigrace, is the Fox Nation website down today?
(and please share your proof how people “turning straight” after being gay….do you even read your posts before pressing SUBMIT?)

@marigrace do you personally know any people that were gay and became straight? I understand the idea that because you belong to a different political party you are allowed to “hate” the opposite opinion. I watched the show and did not hear Rachel argue his claim. She focused on the Uganda issue.

he’s also a total nobody, and the only reason I will ever know his name is because he appeared on her show.

But perhaps if his work is being used to justify killing people, his name and efforts should be made public.

Gay people like Maddow are truly close minded haters and bigots, because they refuse to even consider the concept of people becoming ex-gay. They are even more closed minded than the leaders from Uganda who want to kill gay people.

Straw man! Please lay out your logic and reasoning for why gay people are more close-minded than people who want to kill gay people. You won’t mind, I’m sure, if I don’t hold my breath.

And ah, yes, the time-honored “why won’t they let me be intolerant? They’re being intolerant to ME by refusing to accept my intolerance!” gambit.

First of all, would someone please give Rachel Maddow a Sunday morning show. She is consistently producing hard-hitting interviews, and with George Stephanolpoulos likely leaving This Week, to likely be replaced by Terry Moran, it is increasingly obvious just how badly the Sunday AM hours need some shaking up.

Yes, and a liberal activist posing as a pseudo-journalist would work well for you, Glynnis? Why am I not surprised?

Maddow does not care: “This is made up, fake authoritative stuff that in other countries is being taken as science and used to justify, quite literally, killing gay people….I think you have blood on your hands.”

Interesting how she can feel so strongly about this book… but when anti-terrorism secrets are published in the NYTimes, when John Murtha is making up stories about soldiers killing women and children, when the ACLU is suing to expose classified information… Maddow is strangely okay or silent about that. This guy is a dope, but let’s not pretend that Maddow has a problem with other people using poorly researched or inflammatory “information” as motivation to murder. It’s just the target, apparently… for Maddow, if this leads to the murder of gays… it’s bad. But, if it leads to the murder of soldiers… oh well.

As I said… the guy is obviously a dope… but so is Maddow.

I can certainly understand Maddow’s concern over any theory that suggests that homosexuality is the equivalent of a personality disorder.

Maddow did well to expose Cohen as having NO credentials and NO professional standing in the scientific community.

I do take issue with her linking Cohen with the persecution of gays that has long been happening in Uganda. That seems to be a speech squelching effort on her part that is tantamount to what she accused war supporters and the Bush Administration of doing to war opponents for eight years.

As a conservative who listened to Countdown guest Janeane Garofolo opine on a theory about the “limbic brains” of conservatives, it’s interesting to me that theories about aberrations in the actual DNA of those holding particular political opinions, is tolerated and repeated by posters on this site, but theories linking homosexuality, not to something as immutable as DNA, but with the psychological associations of childhood, are not tolerated.

ANY controversial theory can lead some its most unstable adherent to extreme actions. Any controversial or unpopular position can, to one degree or another, provide aid and comfort for extremists (Uganda, Islamists).

What thinking folks must do is to ask themselves if they are engaging in a tactic that goes beyond exposing a theory or an opinion as being lamebrain on its own account, into essentially tarring and feathering the holder and running them out of town (squelching speech).

Wrongly suggesting that homosexuality is mutable behavior that results from past associations, may give comfort to people who wish to stifle gay rights initiatives or comfort even to people who believe that Hitler was right to exterminate gays, but in this country, it is still a theory that can thrive or die within the national debate.

Linking political ideology to DNA aberrations or someone like Cohen to mass murder, is a personal attack meant to shut down oppositional speech entirely.

It’s a bad precedent for people who consider themselves to be free speech lovers and for people who have been the target of such indictments because of their politics or their sexuality.

Maddow needs to ask herself if her argument is worth it.

Hey mediaite, give Cecilia a job. Actually, give her Glynnis’ job. Or at the very least, teach Glynnis how to label an article. This one clearly should have been identified as a column.

Glynnis clearly doesn’t understand the allure of a Sunday Morning Show. There are plenty of idiots with opinions (just like Maddow), and they have their place on cable in prime time. The host of a Sunday show is supposed to moderate a discussion of policy makers and public officials. If Maddow hosted a Sunday show, it would be the same far-left smirkfest she has now. She would be incapable of having a Republican on her show and asking him unloaded questions.

As for Maddow’s “hard-hitting interviews”, I’ll wait until she actually interviews someone who disagrees with her but who is NOT some fringe author who’s idiocy is obvious to any open-minded person.

This isn’t politically incorrect, but how exactly is it disgusting to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice? Biological research on sexual orientation is expanding and we’re learning new things every day, but no definitive findings have thus far been found.

This is really politically incorrect but I also don’t understand why a gay person who wishes to be straight vis a vis conversion therapy is also disgusting. Wouldn’t that be free will? It may be self-loathing, it may be creepy, but it also may be how they wish to live their life.

I believe sexual orientation is most likely genetic, and I don’t believe in conversion therapy. After hearing about this last night I looked up Cohen online and came to the conclusion, independent of Maddow’ interrogation, that the guy is a hack.

incorrect=correct*

Uganda should enact a law that prohibits Maddow from interviewing anti-gay activists. Talk about man slaughter!

I’d like to see the lesbian academic and feminist writer Camille Paglia guest on the Maddow Show.

Paglia has made several statements questioning whether homosexuality is immutable and has even chided gay rights activists for disrupting the operations of groups who offer varying types of conversion therapy for homosexuals.

Maddow would have a far more challenging debate with Paglia than she does with Mr. Cohen, to say the least..

Especially if she accused Paglia of having blood on her hands.

:

At the end of the day, both are wrong. Cohen is pushing a theory that is, at best, flaky. And he has zero credentials, but he makes a nice profit with it.

Maddow is wrong to accuse Cohen of having blood on his hands. His book may be full of inaccurate data, but that does not make him responsible for the persecution by foreign governments.

I have known gay people that try to change to a straight lifestyle. Almost all of them ended up miserable and eventually returning to who they are. However, that is a choice they get to make for themselves. It is their business and nobody else’s. Maddow and Cohen are both wrong for insisting that only their position is correct.

And that is the core of this dispute. The freedom to be who or what you are. Cohen feels that gay is a disease and therefore not a valid lifestyle choice. Maddow feels that anyone that agrees with Cohen is wrong and somehow evil. Yet, both are still perfectly free to espouse their views and lead their lives.

More hateful, intolerant speech from Maddow in the name of tolerance. I do love hypocrisy among the self righteous.

The definitions of gay and straight are and will forever be unclear. A man can spend 20 years in a loving marriage with a woman. She dies or they divorce, and then he falls in love with a man and lives the rest of his life with him. Is this man gay or straight or bisexual?

I would openly admit most people are naturally drawn to one gender or the other, so I agree is it most often biological. But for others, it’s just a matter of who do you love, and if you are incredibly open minded, you might be able to fall in love with a person regardless of their gender.

blueblogger wrote:

@marigrace do you personally know any people that were gay and became straight?

I live in San Francisco and my answer to that question is “yes” — and no, I am NOT speaking of myself.

If I see one more person state that homosexuality is a “choice” I think I’m going to scream. It’s NOT a choice. It’s something that is hardwired into the human brain during fetal development. Just how many of you straight people can remember when you made a conscious choice to be attracted to the opposite sex? I can’t. I’m a woman and have ALWAYS been attracted to men. I’ve had chances to be sexually involved with women but it just never interested me. The idea was just simply boring. There are all ranges of sexuality folks, from hetero, bisexual, homosexual, to asexuals. Perhaps those who “converted” from homosexuality to heterosexuality were very likely bisexual anyway. Doesn’t prove anything. People don’t choose what is sexually attractive to them. Everyone who is gay says they always felt that way from early childhood just like I’ve always been attracted to the opposite sex since I can remember. When I thought of growing up and getting married the idea of my partner being a woman never entered my mind. That’s reality and putting people in prison or condemning them to death isn’t going to stop people from being born gay. If you really want that to stop then you’re going to have to perfect genetic testing and abort all the resulting gay babies.

Thedes

Is there a gay gene?

I do believe that gay people need a bit of shock therapy to snap them out of this psychosis…

A pro-abortion ideologue accuses a therapist of having blood on his hands. This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.