Be Reasonable: Episode #054 – Michael Davidson

Joining Marsh this month is Michael Davidson from the Christian “ex-gay therapy” ministry, Core Issues Trust.

  1. #1 by Chris on July 31, 2018 - 04:44

    “Viewpoint discrimination”

    Well, bless your heart. Dear sweetie, and yet you tried to pull in some form of “science.”

    (using my best deep south USA voice): Honey child, you are entitled to your own opinions no matter how odious, but not to the scientific facts. Something that has sped away from you like a hound dog from a skunk.

  2. #2 by Matthew on August 5, 2018 - 04:10

    “I was simply encouraged to embrace that reality, which is something, ah, that I didn’t want to do. Um. So yes ah I think it’s tragic…”

  3. #3 by Mike on August 8, 2018 - 17:37

    This was an exemplary interview, with both interviewer and interviewee proving that civility can still be maintained even when opinions differ widely.
    Though I do not personally agree with (or – less relevantly – like) Mr. Davidson’s views, I can’t fault the articulate manner in which he put his case.
    It was break from the often utterly bonkers arguments that Marsh encounters. Other shows tend to be more exasperating albeit entertaining than informative. During this episode, however, I felt I genuinely got to understand the interviewee’s case. His reasoning was flawed, IMO, but at least there were some hints of syllogism.

    Coincidentally, this article came out today, which cites cases of trauma caused by conversion therapy:

    Not that this contradicts Davidson’s argument; he was adamant that his “therapy” applies to people who have a “genuine” desire to change their sexual proclivities.

    But in the end I simply didn’t believe that the interviewee was being entirely honest with himself or anyone else. His drive, after all, is surely informed by his avowed Christianity, which views homosexuality as “sinful”. This fact alone undermines any claim that his approach is scientifically based.

  4. #4 by Marcus on June 12, 2019 - 12:10

    Gah. Viewpoint discrimination. I reserve the right I discriminate against viewpoints which can be demonstrated to be flawed, false and harmful. Discrimination in favour of provable truth is a *good* thing.
    This ‘histories’ thing gets me too. He seems to be claiming that the people who come to him ‘voluntarily’, are only ‘expressing these lifestyle behaviours’ because of some historical event of experience. In short, they had trauma early in life and so are now behaving gay… at this point I always like to play one of my favourite games *paint it black*.
    What would we say to someone who came to a mental health professional saying “I’ve had a hard life being black, and it’s causing me social and even physical harm. I’d like to stop please.” The prejudice black peoples have experienced is because they are black. They are not ‘expressing black lifestyle behaviours *because* they experienced prejudice. They were born black. Racial prejudice is a problem with society. When you experience oppression based on your skin colour, you work to change society. What you *don’t* do is go to a clinic to get your skin bleached, so you don’t have to be black anymore. No one would enable that.
    People are born on a spectrum of sexuality. The early trauma they experienced is often *because* of their sexuality, not the cause of it. When you experience oppression based on your sexuality, you work to change society. What you *don’t* do is go to a gay conversion clinic to get made straight, so you don’t have to be gay anymore. *No one should enable that*.

  5. #5 by Kara on January 1, 2020 - 06:08

    I didn’t listen to this for a while because I find these interviewees particularly hard to hear. I love Marsh’s staple “what evidence would change your mind” question, but one thing I wish — and often wish– that Marsh had asked is what effects (ie, harm) airing this “viewpoint” has on a vulnerable population.
    For example, the existence of a clientele here likely has some relationship to the prejudice people encounter due to the viewpoints Davidson pushes. It was highly relevant to the racism analogy, and the “do no harm” discussion. The potential harm isn’t just to clients.
    One reason we shouldn’t continue to relitigate some issues is that the relitigation itself can do harm to a historically oppressed population. That has also been true for other conspiracy theories, e.g. 9/11, “crisis actors”, etc. I’d love to see the harms question become a staple as well.

(will not be published)