Sadly, there are so many different ways to slice this and *pretend* to come up with an answer that (as usual) everyone will have their own sets of data proving whatever they want.

When P&T do these shows on "social science," it can be very difficult to come up with a definitive answer - especially when some/many in the family values camp would like to first quote God as support. If someone believes, it's going to be difficult to prove or disprove.

I like it when they go after things that can really be statistically or factually be proven bullshit. I think I'll like next week's episode a little better.

RS

Well, I just watched it, and it was worth the watch, but was a pretty poor episode for them. Maybe it seemed poor because I care so little about the subject. I don't care if gay people get married, I don't care if people have group marriages (nor do I believe that our legal system can't handle it). So basically you have a show about something I just don't care much about. Hard to make that interesting.

And there are some animals that are monogomous, including some whales, wolves, whooping crane....perhaps it is just animals that start with the letter W. :)

There was really a lot they could have done with this topic. enough to spawn off about four different episodes really. Leykis on it was pretty much perfect and needed much more of him in there.

I wanted to throw something at the TV screen everytime asshat Medved was on the screen. He's just a stupid guy who unfortunately has been allowed to spew his crap on TV and in print for far too long.

Previous interest level isn't a prerequisite for me. I don't care much about environmentalism (or I guess anti-environmentalism in my case ;) ), but that show was probably one of their best.

I've gotta say this was the least interesting P&T yet. There were some amusing moments but as someone said previously if you already believe they just reinforce your belief and if you don't believe they aren't going to change your mind.

Last week I didn't agree with them but it was at least entertaining (and disgusting!) but this week I just found myself uninterested. Only real bright spot was them discussing why people would come on their show. That amused me. Looking forward to next week... that should be good.

Probably because that episode actually exposed something. This one basically came down to "live and let live"


Medved trully was an asshat, but I don't think Leykis came off much better. He probably would have if they didn't mention that while he hates marriage, he has been married 4 times. :lol:

I don't think Tom Leykis is syndicated in DC. Sounds like a show I would probably like.

I think Leykis is kind of a jerk. He used to be on here but not any more and I haven't heard him in a long time. It seems to me there was some change in his show awhile back when he decided misogyny could sell.

I thought this was a pretty good one. This was definitely one of those topics where it's hard to provide proof to back up some of their claims. They sure did have a lot of asshats on this one, though. The "marriage isn't a salad bar" guy was hilariously terrible, and the "gay-fixer" really had me both :mad: and feeling sorry for him at the same time. So deluded...

Well as a daily listener, he does make some valid points on the topic and his stance on the whole marriage issue is that both parties should be over the age of 25 and experienced everything they could possibly think of before even thinking about it. He also adds in that he sees no benefit in it for a man to get married. The laws favor the females on just about everything if it goes bad.

I use to listen to Leykis. Fun when he had Kevin Meeney on, but otherwise, he wasn't worth listening to.


Okay, I may be opening a can of worms with this one, but let's see if I can keep from being flamed or offending people....

I didn't really have a problem with the "gay fixer." When I was in graduate school, the head of the department was an openly gay woman. She talked about whether or not it was right to "cure" teh gay. With her, it basically came down to what was in the best interests of the client. If it was a person who simply wasn't comfortable being gay, it was probably more appropriate to work on that self image. But she had worked with me who were very religious (in this case, Mormon and Muslim) whose identity was very much wrapped up in their religion and in their religious community. She fully supported "curing" them. She believed it was more of a "learn to be a homosexual and live like a heterosexual" type of fix, but what is wrong with that? Even with Penn & Teller, why does it actually bother them if someone is uncomfortable being gay, and wants to become a straight? Doesn't affect my life one bit (which is generally the benchmark they use), so why care?

I have the feeling that if I wanted to become gay, I would be applauded for the decision (except from my wife). I would be see as "open-minded" and in tune with myself, etc. It is simply none of my business if someone wants to get rid of teh gay. Maybe it can't work, maybe it can. I don't know enough about the science behind it (if there is any).

Anyway,I didn't really get why that guy was included.

If it were truly a choice in any meaningful sense I would agree with you. I just don't think it is in almost all cases. Probably people can move a little bit on their straight/gay "orientation" line but I doubt very much that many can move very far.

I wouldn't applaud anyone for "wanting" to be gay or straight. I'll applaud anyone for accepting what they are and I think it's almost always damaging for others to try to make people into what they're not (in this area), for whatever reason.

I don't think it is a choice in most cases either. But if a person doesn't like being some way (be it fat, flat chested, gay, etc.) and wants to change, I have as much problem with them trying to change as I do with them not trying to change....none.

Kind of like a sex change.

This is probably as good a time as any to note that I've always wanted to be a dolphin.

das

A jewish dolphin? A jewphin?

Are you talkin' to me?

You sure you don't want to be a whale dolphinboy?

I guess I need to ask why they want to change. Because it's a lot harder being gay in our society? Because people think their parents will hate them? Because they have been brought up in a (certain type of) religious household that condemns it and they think it means they are bad people and/or will go to hell?

For whatever reason I think it's a lot better for others to help and counsel people to be what they are rather than to try to be what they're not, even if they think it's what they "want." I think one way tends to help them and the other way tends to harm them.

A person who is fat or flat chested or whatever can get that changed through a variety of ways. A person who is gay (or straight) is extremely unlikely to ever become straight (or gay) just because he or she wants to. "Helping" them to do so is, in the vast majority of cases, not help at all and much more likely to cause harm.

While, of course, people should have the freedom to pursue sexual orientation changes and others have the right to "aid" them, I don't think much of those who deal in such "aid."

There's a difference here. Generally, when people determine that they are gay, or realize that they are gay, they are accepting who they are. They are not changing themselves. This guy is telling people that it's wrong or evil to be gay and is trying to artificially change people (including himself) into being something that they are not in order to fit in with religious beliefs or for whatever other reasons. I don't agree with that practice.

Didn't look like he had finished curing himself, actually. Far too much talk of "healthy man love". :)

IF that is true, then I agree with you. I didn't see that he claimed it was evil to be gay, etc., nor did I see that he is out preaching that being gay needs to be fixed.

I don't necessarily agree with what he does either, but it looked to me like he found a niche in counseling people that do not want to be gay. I don't have a problem with that. That opinion is pretty much based on what my gay professor taught me.

I must have missed that part. It looked to me like he was just "helping" people who wanted it. Maybe there's more background than what was shown, but I figure if that was his practice, P&T would have had more fun at his expense. I'm not defending him by any stretch, just keeping things in perspective.

As to the argument at hand, is gay/straight really that binary? When we talk about "accepting who you are", do we assume that people can be definitively categorized as one or the other, and it's just a matter of realizing which you are? I'm not sure I buy that.

Also, while religion and social pressure are the clear leaders in why people would want to "change", it's not too unreasonable to think that even without such pressures, some people would still feel the same way. The desire to procreate with your lover is strong in many people. I'm just speculating, but in a world where gay people were treated no different from straight, and there was a magic pill that allowed you to switch teams, I suspect there'd be plenty of gay men and women doing so for that very reason.

das