Be Reasonable: Episode #054 – Michael Davidson


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

Play
  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:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/i-still-have-flashbacks-the-global-epidemic-of-lgbt-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.

(will not be published)