• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Rekers, Christian Right Leader, Denies Gay Prostitution Allegation

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here: I'm talking about sexual orientation being inherent and immutable, unchangeable.

Then you shouldn't have said "curable". You implied that they were ill and needed treatment. I was talking about it not being a disease and I thought you were too. Now we aren't. Okay.

I have my doubts about that. I did a little research at one point when I became intrested in the subject, and no there isn't a scientific "consensus"... consensus implies a near-universal agreement.

No, they don't have a consensus for this context.

They do have a consensus that it is not an illness.

I have no idea. Maybe.

I think back to one time at a gym, I overheard two gay guys talking. One of them was talking about some young straight guy and that he was "working on him" (his words, not mine) to get him in the sack. :shrug: Anecdotal, I know, but it certainly gave me the impression that at least some gay guys think they could "turn" a straight.

Even if the gay guy did sleep with him, it wouldn't necessarily make him gay. He may be bisexual or bi-curious.

The fact of the matter is, I have serious doubts about this whole "inborn and immutable" theory of sexual orientation. I'm sure you (or CC or someone) could cite the research of Dr. Feelgood and Dr. Strangelove or whoever, supporting your view. So how do I know that your sources aren't citing agenda-driven research? Agenda-driven research happens all the frigging time, if for no other reason than because it's easier to get funding for PC research than non-PC research, and your liberal friends at the University will still invite you to cocktail parties.

Peer reviewed journals are as honest and unbiased as it gets.

Gays obviously don't have that much power to get the whole scientific community on their side. They are a minority. The most I have seen is that they make up 10% of the population. I believe it to be at 4-6%.

Try getting funding and University backing for a research project whose goal is "to prove that homosexuality isn't inborn or immutable" and see how far you get. Not far at all, is my guess.

Basically, by doing studies to prove it is inborn, you very well could prove that it isn't. So, yeah, studying the issue at all is doing that. You see, the study is "Is homosexuality inborn?". Without any evidence, you can't prove one way or the other. They are merely collecting data. If your study was to prove something, you would have to have a hypothesis that you would then test. i.e. "By changing hormone levels, you can change someone's sexual orientation." Good luck finding test subjects on that one. ;)

Also, nothing is stopping the private market from doing a study. If the methodology is not flawed, the scientific community would recognize it. To do so would also be a major breakthrough. Whoever does that will be able to write a book and make millions.

To be honest, I think that ANY position that goes something like "ALL gays are that way because of _______" are wrong. (Whether your blank is filled with "inborn", "early influences", "abuse", "gender identification" or "choice"/etc.) I don't think it is actually that simple, I don't think human behavior is that easily pigeonholed and defined. I think it is a spectrum rather than a light-switch.

Are you familiar with the Kinsey Scale?

I think he was correct.
 
Then you shouldn't have said "curable". You implied that they were ill and needed treatment. I was talking about it not being a disease and I thought you were too. Now we aren't. Okay.

I didn't say it was an illness. If I'd known the use of that word "cureable" was going to freak everyone out, I would have said "orientation change" or something instead. 'Scuze the @#$ outta me. :mrgreen:



Even if the gay guy did sleep with him, it wouldn't necessarily make him gay. He may be bisexual or bi-curious.

See, this is where I think there is some self-fulfilling prophesy going on here. I had this out with CC one time. You guys want to say that if someone does change from straight homo behavior to something else, then either they were not really gay to start with, or they're just engaging in non-gay behavior right now but that doesn't mean their orientation has changed. Holy crap, dude, talk about making square pegs fit round holes!

I wish I could get Vegas to let me change the rules of the game in the middle like that, and redefine terms to force facts to fit my theory.

It's sorta like this. Let's say that I observe some circles in the wild, and I observe some of the circles changing into squares. From this observation, I would conclude that at least some circles can change into squares, and speculate that shape is not immutable.

The alternative theory being thrown out here is "well they weren't really circles to begin with, they were just acting like circles temporarily; or else they aren't really squares now, they're circles pretending to be squares". :wassat1::fly::screwy


Peer reviewed journals are as honest and unbiased as it gets.

Gays obviously don't have that much power to get the whole scientific community on their side. They are a minority. The most I have seen is that they make up 10% of the population. I believe it to be at 4-6%.

Actually it isn't simply GBLTs themselves, but the roughly 30% of the general public who seems to feel compelled to support and endorse all things that they think seem pro-homosexual whether they make sense or not. Since probably three-fourths of academia fall within that 30% supporter faction...




Are you familiar with the Kinsey Scale?

I think he was correct.

Yes, I am, but frankly I wouldn't buy anything Kinsey wrote without a large helping of salt on the side. He may have stumbled across some fragments of the truth but I have grave doubts about his professionalism and lack of bias.
 
Last edited:
It's sorta like this. Let's say that I observe some circles in the wild, and I observe some of the circles changing into squares. From this observation, I would conclude that at least some circles can change into squares, and speculate that shape is not immutable.

The alternative theory being thrown out here is "well they weren't really circles to begin with, they were just acting like circles temporarily; or else they aren't really squares now, they're circles pretending to be squares".

I'm sorry to make this so long but I think you are an intelligent person who might be open to some of my ideas, so I need to elaborate a bit.

I can only speak from my personal beliefs here, but I do think that it's possible for some to change, not all. You have to avoid generalizations here. Just because some people can change does not mean that all can change, nor should anyone be expected to change.

In relation to that, I think only a very small number can change, and it has to do with people who have evolved minds and a level of openness with themselves and others that transcends the notion of fixed orientations. After all, the labels of "gay" and "straight" are modern inventions and they are being applied to feelings and impulses that are much more complicated. I've only met a couple of people in my entire life who have willfully transcended the orientation point at which they started, but they are extremely rare.

Because they are rare, I avoid saying that the change is possible at all, because opponents to homosexuality will obfuscate what I'm saying and make it seem like an orientation change is possible for everyone; and the general populous is, frankly, not ready to have that subtle level of discussion that requires finely tuned intelligence and awareness of some of the deeper levels to human sexuality.

You can't bring the argument to that level with many people because most are still stuck on the idea that men having sex with men is wrong. Homosexuality has to be an issue before it's a non-issue; and once it's a non-issue, then society can move to the next level of discourse on human sexual nature. Honestly, right now, the general arguments I am seeing in the political sphere are extremely rudimentary. In many cases, it is still essentially a human rights battle over whether or not men should even be allowed to be with men. You have to put the time line of gay rights in perspective to really understand this. The battle feels long but historically it has not been, and the right wing has been pushed fast to increase its tolerance of things that were formerly abhorrent to it -- perhaps too fast.

Actually it isn't simply GBLTs themselves, but the roughly 30% of the general public who seems to feel compelled to support and endorse all things that they think seem pro-homosexual whether they make sense or not. Since probably three-fourths of academia fall within that 30% supporter faction...

I don't believe there to be academic bias and I can assure you, I have studied this much more in depth than you have; I was studying it when I was younger and coming to terms with my sexuality, and as a medical professional in adulthood. Academics aren't rallying around information because they're trying to be PC and are avoiding false information; there are genuinely interesting facts uncovered by sexology research.

The main problem is that the vast, vast amount of sexology research is focused on heterosexuals. Only a comparatively minuscule amount has delved into homosexuality beyond what Kinsey did.

Yes, I am, but frankly I wouldn't buy anything Kinsey wrote without a large helping of salt on the side. He may have stumbled across some fragments of the truth but I have grave doubts about his professionalism and lack of bias.

I don't necessarily disagree with your view on this. Kinsey had some flawed research methods, but he did uncover some important truths. Let's not throw the baby out the with the bath water here.

On the other hand, you will be hard pressed to find a chronology of "cured" stories beyond the past 15-20 years, or those that don't involve religious coercion. Essentially all of the homosexual "treatment" centres that exist in the year 2010 are religiously motivated, which is why it's difficult to evaluate with them objectively. Just because people claim they are cured and can give the appearance of being heterosexual (i.e. by taking a partner of the opposite sex, pro-creating heterosexually, etc.), it does not mean they are inherently functional that way. I, for example, am not opposed to the idea of procreating through natural means with the right woman when the time comes; but just because I could function sexually with a woman does not mean my heart and soul would thrive with a woman.

Before the gay rights movement, the majority of homosexuals in the U.S. either remained single or adopted socially acceptable heterosexual lifestyles in order to blend. Many had same sex relations on the side. In China (where I have spent a lot of time), it is equivalent to the 1950's right now in terms of awareness of homosexuality. Men live family lives by day, fulfilling their traditional obligations, and by night anything goes. My friend and I were walking around Xuan Wu lake in Nanjing one night and we accidentally came across two men having sex in the bushes. It was incredibly awkward, but that sort of thing is not that uncommon in places where homosexuality is forced underground by the mainstream.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to address these issues thoughtfully and openly, I appreciate this.

...

I can only speak from my personal beliefs here, but I do think that it's possible for some to change, not all. You have to avoid generalizations here. Just because some people can change does not mean that all can change, nor should anyone be expected to change.

In relation to that, I think only a very small number can change, and it has to do with people who have evolved minds and a level of openness with themselves and others that transcends the notion of fixed orientations. ...
Because they are rare, I avoid saying that the change is possible at all, because opponents to homosexuality will obfuscate what I'm saying and make it seem like an orientation change is possible for everyone; and the general populous is, frankly, not ready to have that subtle level of discussion that requires finely tuned intelligence and awareness of some of the deeper levels to human sexuality.

Let me say how much I appreciate your honesty and openness in the above statements, and that I understand how "giving ammo to the enemy" is something anyone is loathe to do.

In return, I will openly give back some ammo...

I would tend to agree with you that while some apparently can, not everyone who is homosexual is capable of changing their orientation. I again refer to my own life-experience in an example: a gentleman I've known since childhood, a man of the highest character and quality, very bravely chose to marry an "ex-lesbian" woman who had supposedly changed her orientation and wished to pursue a hetero life. They were married and had a baby...and when the baby was about a year old, she left him and went back to her former lesbian partner. He was heartbroken... but he also said that he felt like she had honestly tried and just couldn't cope with the change.


You can't bring the argument to that level with many people because most are still stuck on the idea that men having sex with men is wrong. Homosexuality has to be an issue before it's a non-issue; and once it's a non-issue, then society can move to the next level of discourse on human sexual nature. Honestly, right now, the general arguments I am seeing in the political sphere are extremely rudimentary. In many cases, it is still essentially a human rights battle over whether or not men should even be allowed to be with men. You have to put the time line of gay rights in perspective to really understand this. The battle feels long but historically it has not been, and the right wing has been pushed fast to increase its tolerance of things that were formerly abhorrent to it -- perhaps too fast.

Well, I myself belong to a religion which views homosexuality as a sin. As an adherent of that religion, I am morally obligated to view homosexual activity with disapproval. Consider yourself "viewed with disapproval". :naughty

Okay, now that that's out of the way... :mrgreen: ... politically I don't think Gov has any business sticking its nose in the bedroom. Nor do I have any business sticking my nose in your bedroom. It's when these issues move into the public eye that things become more complicated. On the issue of gay marriage I have concerns and have not yet been convinced that the normalization of SSM is altogether desireable.

I don't believe there to be academic bias and I can assure you, I have studied this much more in depth than you have; I was studying it when I was younger and coming to terms with my sexuality, and as a medical professional in adulthood. Academics aren't rallying around information because they're trying to be PC and are avoiding false information; there are genuinely interesting facts uncovered by sexology research.

There was a time when I viewed science, and scientists, with enormous respect and a sense of awe at the "pure quest for knowlege". This was back in my early years at college when I still had some thought of becoming a scientific researcher myself. That was before I was actually exposed to the world of academia and researchers, and the pursuit of grants/funding/tenure/publication. The cut-throat internal politics I saw quite disgusted me and changed my perceptions of science and scientists dramatically. Further experiences with agenda-driven "polling" and "research" left me highly suspicious of all such sources, and extremely reluctant to believe in anyone's objectivity.

Accordingly, I take what any "expert" or researcher says about any subject that is politically charged with a large helping of salt. Actually I am more inclined to listen to the well-reasoned words of individuals, who have impressed me with their honestly on a personal level and have some valid experience with the topic in question, than some faceless academic I've never met.




On the other hand, you will be hard pressed to find a chronology of "cured" stories beyond the past 15-20 years, or those that don't involve religious coercion. Essentially all of the homosexual "treatment" centres that exist in the year 2010 are religiously motivated, which is why it's difficult to evaluate with them objectively. Just because people claim they are cured and can give the appearance of being heterosexual (i.e. by taking a partner of the opposite sex, pro-creating heterosexually, etc.), it does not mean they are inherently functional that way. I, for example, am not opposed to the idea of procreating through natural means with the right woman when the time comes; but just because I could function sexually with a woman does not mean my heart and soul would thrive with a woman.

Before the gay rights movement, the majority of homosexuals in the U.S. either remained single or adopted socially acceptable heterosexual lifestyles in order to blend. Many had same sex relations on the side. In China (where I have spent a lot of time), it is equivalent to the 1950's right now in terms of awareness of homosexuality. Men live family lives by day, fulfilling their traditional obligations, and by night anything goes. My friend and I were walking around Xuan Wu lake in Nanjing one night and we accidentally came across two men having sex in the bushes. It was incredibly awkward, but that sort of thing is not that uncommon in places where homosexuality is forced underground by the mainstream

Okay, this makes a certain amount of sense, though I wouldn't overemphasize the religious "coercion" aspect when typically people enter these programs voluntarily....not to say that some might not do so reluctantly.

As I've said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic. My chief objection has been to the way some people want to paint it as strictly black-and-white, and assert that "NO homosexual-oriented person could possibly change their orientation ever" when I don't think it is at all that simple, nor that the evidence supports a strictly A-or-B viewpoint.

Intresting discussion, thank you.
 
I just saw a news item on TV in which Rekers is now claiming (After nobody believed his first 2 excuses) that he brought rentboy with him in order to cure rentboy of his homosexuality.

Looks like Reker's plan was to blow that homosexuality right out of rentboy. LOL.
 
I just saw a news item on TV in which Rekers is now claiming (After nobody believed his first 2 excuses) that he brought rentboy with him in order to cure rentboy of his homosexuality.

Looks like Reker's plan was to blow that homosexuality right out of rentboy. LOL.

This is just appalling hypocrisy on many fronts....

A. If the guy is homosexual, he shouldn't be approaching the issue of homosexuality with far greater sensitivity than he has. No one needs his holier-than-thou mantra, especially given that he is, in fact, less holy than thou.
b. If, as a Christian, he believes homosexuality is a sin and he just committed that sin, he must publicly confess (given he publicly condemned) that sin and not compound it with lies. At least Ted Haggard eventually did this. Being in the leadership of the church means '...always having to say your are sorry...'
c. As a hypocrite, he should resign. The last thing the church needs is hypocrites amongst its leadership.
 
Last edited:
He should be mature and simply come clean instead of insulting everyone's intelligence.
 
I almost always fall on the side of what people do in private ain't none of my business. I think that is mostly true here too, except some of this is too funny.

Rentboy...that had me laughing almost hysterically.

A gay guy authoring books on how to raise strait kids...too awesome.

The excuse that he was trying to cure the guy...truly priceless.

Question for those without an addblocker: what kind of adds this thread getting? I remember before I switched to Firefox that any thread about gays used to have the most awesome adds.
 
One more thing on this, and I think I'll be done.

Cases like this draw a lot of publicity because revelations of hypocrisy always sell newspapers (and the higher-tech equivalents).

What is a shame is that many thousands of ministers work faithfully for what they believe, and the people they care about, day after day and year after year, never seeking the spotlight and going largely unnoticed by those who like to revel in these hypocrisy stories.

This happens alot, and it's a shame. As a liberal, I get blamed for Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton and so on. We play the game of "guilty by association" far too often.

By and large, most ministers are not child molesting closet gays and it is a damn shame that due to the nature of how things are reported it seems otherwise. I really do think most social conservatives at least try and live to the standards they espouse, with greater or lesser success.
 
Thank you for taking the time to address these issues thoughtfully and openly, I appreciate this.

No problemo. :mrgreen:

I would tend to agree with you that while some apparently can, not everyone who is homosexual is capable of changing their orientation. I again refer to my own life-experience in an example: a gentleman I've known since childhood, a man of the highest character and quality, very bravely chose to marry an "ex-lesbian" woman who had supposedly changed her orientation and wished to pursue a hetero life. They were married and had a baby...and when the baby was about a year old, she left him and went back to her former lesbian partner. He was heartbroken... but he also said that he felt like she had honestly tried and just couldn't cope with the change.

Your story illustrates an important point. It usually comes down to whether or not the "cured" person can repress reality, and for how long. I mean, the propaganda tells us that X number of people are "cured" every year, but how much follow up is done on those stories to see if it sticks, or if the person ends up developing mental illness like depression because of it?

And what are the motivations for wanting to rid oneself of homosexuality? Is it truly because the person believes they are ill, or because of social pressures? I mean, people are only as functional as their surrounding community permits them to be. I can walk down the street in Vancouver holding hands with a guy and not get harassed; but maybe in a small town on the interior of BC I would get attacked, which, as a teenager, might give me pause to think that there is something wrong with me to deserve it. That is how the seed of abnormality gets planted, coercing people to seek "cures" for something that isn't even an illness.

Well, I myself belong to a religion which views homosexuality as a sin. As an adherent of that religion, I am morally obligated to view homosexual activity with disapproval. Consider yourself "viewed with disapproval". :naughty

Okay, now that that's out of the way... :mrgreen: ... politically I don't think Gov has any business sticking its nose in the bedroom. Nor do I have any business sticking my nose in your bedroom. It's when these issues move into the public eye that things become more complicated. On the issue of gay marriage I have concerns and have not yet been convinced that the normalization of SSM is altogether desireable.

I myself belong a predominantly heterosexual society, and as a member of that society I'm morally obligated to view homosexuality as an abomination. Accordingly, I am married to a woman and have two kids whom I love.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, here is my gay lover Paul. We've been together for 22 years. :lol:

Gay marriage is a contentious issue for the U.S. The debate arose in Canada earlier in the decade and was swiftly dealt with. Yeah, there are pockets of conservatives in Canada (particularly religious ones) who would love nothing more than to have it overturned, but the majority don't care. And actually, it's a non-issue now. Churches that are against it have the right to not perform ceremony, and gay married couples, much like straight married couples, lead low profile lives, especially if they have kids.

I really think that people who hate homosexuals are just hating a concept. They have some idea in their mind of what it means and are aligned against it, but most of them have not befriended a gay person, gotten to know them, and had the chance to see what normal lives they live.

In other words, I think the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. There are more important things to worry about. Anyway, I don't want this to become a SMS debate; we've both been down that road and it's never ending.

There was a time when I viewed science, and scientists, with enormous respect and a sense of awe at the "pure quest for knowlege". This was back in my early years at college when I still had some thought of becoming a scientific researcher myself. That was before I was actually exposed to the world of academia and researchers, and the pursuit of grants/funding/tenure/publication. The cut-throat internal politics I saw quite disgusted me and changed my perceptions of science and scientists dramatically. Further experiences with agenda-driven "polling" and "research" left me highly suspicious of all such sources, and extremely reluctant to believe in anyone's objectivity.

Accordingly, I take what any "expert" or researcher says about any subject that is politically charged with a large helping of salt. Actually I am more inclined to listen to the well-reasoned words of individuals, who have impressed me with their honestly on a personal level and have some valid experience with the topic in question, than some faceless academic I've never met.

I do agree that science is politically charged. We could get into a whole other discussion about this, but I think the politicization of it has intensified over the past 15-20 years a lot. Part of the problem is that science can now be bought by huge, huge corporations. Research funding also tends to determine the result. Peer reviewed journals are one of the last bastions of protected material. If it's not peer reviewed, I basically distrust it.

I understand what you mean about individual stories. To me it's sometimes more important to listen to those, and after years of hearing them I have begun to make my own observations about trends. Some of them correspond to science, others do not. Homosexuality was removed from the psychiatric diagnostic books in 1979. I do think the gay rights movement had a lot to do with it, but not in a manipulative way.

It was the gay rights movement that allowed scientific dialogue about homosexuality to happen at all, whereas prior to that era it was considered a mental illness because it conveniently coincided with the prejudices of the mainstream. Once science sobered up to reality, it quickly realized that it couldn't call an aspect of sexuality an illness like that. The prejudices of the mainstream still exist and science, in a lot of ways, is counter-culture to those sentiments; but science can sometimes back up the mainstream. It really depends on the topic.

Let me just say, in short, that I don't think there is systemic bias when it comes to science supporting homosexuality. It is still actively looking for a genetic explanation without regard to the potential consequences if one is found. I have no doubt that we would see a movement - one that would perhaps infiltrate government policy - to exterminate homosexuality from the gene pool entirely.

If science were pro-active in protecting gays, I don't think it would be looking so hard for a genetic explanation. After all, is there intensive research into the heterosexual gene? No, I don't think so. So they're searching for a homosexual gene under the premise that it's a deviation from the normal model: heterosexual genetics. As you can see, science also contains the same biases as the mainstream, that the base, or normal point of comparison, is heterosexuals, whereas the thing that sticks out or doesn't look right is the gays.

I read a study recently that sisters of homosexual men tend to be more fertile and have a higher chance of multiple-baby births. There may yet be an evolutionary explanation for why this happens and we shouldn't be quick to eliminate it.

Okay, this makes a certain amount of sense, though I wouldn't overemphasize the religious "coercion" aspect when typically people enter these programs voluntarily....not to say that some might not do so reluctantly.

Well, you have to put this into perspective. People may not be entering these programs with religious intentions, but virtually all of the programs stem from religious groups. The intentions of the "diseased" and the intentions of the groups are completely different. Most homosexuals go through a period where they are coming to terms with how they don't fit into social norms, and I dare say many even wish they weren't gay. But that's just the intense part of coming out and it has to do with fears of how your community will view you. People coming to be cured are largely caving to social pressures, whereas those providing the "cure" are doing so out of religious motivation.

As I've said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic. My chief objection has been to the way some people want to paint it as strictly black-and-white, and assert that "NO homosexual-oriented person could possibly change their orientation ever" when I don't think it is at all that simple, nor that the evidence supports a strictly A-or-B viewpoint.

Nothing is truly black and white but there are definitely trends. If we're just having a coffee table discussion about this then I am open to talking about fluidic sexuality, but if it's a government policy discussion then you have to look at the trend which is that gay people tend to stay gay their entire lives (as with straight people), and should not be expected to change or conform to a social norm that isn't in line with who they are.

Intresting discussion, thank you.

Ditto.
 
If being gay is a choice, why do so many fervent advocates of heterosexuality choose to be gay?
 
Back
Top Bottom