George Rekers, Christian Right Leader, Denies Gay Prostitution Allegation

Larry Craig denied he was a homosexual too, after getting caught. It made for a lot of hilarity too.

According to the New Times story, by Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp, Rekers was spotted returning from a ten-day trip to Europe with a young man identified as Lucien, who he allegedly met on a gay website called Rentboy.com. On that site, Lucien appeared shirtless, and his physical attributes were described in detail; he was identified as "HIV and Disease FREE," offered "a sensual meet or companionship" and said he will "do anything you say as long as you ask."

Click to expand...

Rekkers, of course, is saying that he is being slandered, but there is the photo of him and his "boy" getting off the plane together.

Now here is the hilarious part. Just who is Rekkers?:

You might not know Rekers, but he has long played a prominent role behind the scenes in the social conservative movement: A member of the founding board of the conservative Family Research Council, Rekers has authored books on how to ensure that children grow up straight.

A Baptist minister and former research fellow at Harvard University, Rekers has testified against gay adoptions and is on the board of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, which "upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care."

Click to expand...

Jeez, who would have thunk it? [/sarcasm]

It's the same old story, time and time again.

1) Paragon of virtue wants to tell us all how we should live our lives.

2) Paragon of virtue gets caught in a "gay" moment.

3) Paragon of virtue denies he is gay.

You know, when you are really, really repressed, to the point that you talk about other people being scum bags, and then you get caught doing the exact same thing, that says a lot about you.

Sex, whether straight or gay, is not dirty. But let's give Mr. Rekkers the benefit of the doubt, and just say it is, for argument's sake. When two lovers are done having sex, they take a bath, and everything washes right off, and they are happy. In Mr. Rekker's case, he can scrub himself all he wants to, and he will still be filthy. Why? Because his filthiness towards others is all in his own mind, and that kind of hypocritical thinking never washes off. Mr. Rekker, along with his ilk, will always be filthy.

Article is here.

And here is the New Times story that started it all.

I think Mr. Rekkers has been butt****ed in more ways than one. :mrgreen:

Once again it's proven, people that work so hard to demonize something, are so often self loathers, and engage in that very activity.

danarhea said:

George Rekers

Click to expand...

Never heard of him.


If he was my leader, you'd think I'd have heard his name somewhere.



I'm more partial to Billy Graham and Dr. Dobson myself.

The Reverend sits on the same board as Dobson, and is a leading light in anti-gay therapy, ironically providing evidence of it's lack of efficacy.

It seems these men try to mask their homosexuality by violently condemning it. Because they are homosexuals it is ingrained in their insecure mind that others must suspect the truth. So acting out of insecurity they go and act strongly against homosexuality. It's all fueled by their insecurities, it doesn't really surprise me.

digsbe said:

It seems these men try to mask their homosexuality by violently condemning it. Because they are homosexuals it is ingrained in their insecure mind that others must suspect the truth. So acting out of insecurity they go and act strongly against homosexuality. It's all fueled by their insecurities, it doesn't really surprise me.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I think it probably creates a feedback loop. These guys grow up being told and believing that being gay is an abomination. When they start to notice these feelings in themselves, they are disgusted by their own impulses. This leads to a stronger outward hatred of homosexuals which leads to more self-hatred and so on.

Must be a sad life to live.

Manc Skipper said:

The Reverend sits on the same board as Dobson, and is a leading light in anti-gay therapy, ironically providing evidence of it's lack of efficacy.

Click to expand...

:shrug: I have no particular opinion on whether homosexuality is curable through therapy. Not my field. I've heard evidence presented by both sides, for and against, but I reserve judgement at this point.

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.

Maybe he was drunk, that seems to be the most common excuse.

He did not have sexual relations with that rent boy.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well that's the news in general, isn't it? How much of the news that we hear about is actually good? The mass media almost never talks about good things that happened. It's all about misery, scandal, and shock factor. It kind of reminds me of those bosses who never, ever acknowledge the hard work you put in, but the second you do something wrong they are threatening to fire you. It's called: zero appreciation.

Actually, I take that back, sometimes they do show nice stories, but the stories are about such trivial and meaningless things that they come across more like a platitude. "Okay, so we just bombarded you with 1.5 hours of horrendous suffering and debauchery, but here is a story about how a girl rescued a bunch of bunnies from a storm drain. All is well that ends well right? :thumbs:"

I went to a conference in October that was about globalization, but there was a woman there talking about the salacious tendencies of the modern media. She said that most agencies who make attempts to sell stories of virtue end up running into financial difficulties. So, I guess they are just giving people what they want?

Orion said:

Well that's the news in general, isn't it? How much of the news that we hear about is actually good? The mass media almost never talks about good things that happened. It's all about misery, scandal, and shock factor. It kind of reminds me of those bosses who never, ever acknowledge the hard work you put in, but the second you do something wrong they are threatening to fire you. It's called: zero appreciation.

Actually, I take that back, sometimes they do show nice stories, but the stories are about such trivial and meaningless things that they come across more like a platitude. "Okay, so we just bombarded you with 1.5 hours of horrendous suffering and debauchery, but here is a story about how a girl rescued a bunch of bunnies from a storm drain. All is well that ends well right? :thumbs:"

I went to a conference in October that was about globalization, but there was a woman there talking about the salacious tendencies of the modern media. She said that most agencies who make attempts to sell stories of virtue end up running into financial difficulties. So, I guess they are just giving people what they want?

Click to expand...

In summary: if it bleeds, it leads.
The journalist's creed. ^

Orion said:

Well that's the news in general, isn't it? How much of the news that we hear about is actually good? The mass media almost never talks about good things that happened. It's all about misery, scandal, and shock factor. It kind of reminds me of those bosses who never, ever acknowledge the hard work you put in, but the second you do something wrong they are threatening to fire you. It's called: zero appreciation.

Actually, I take that back, sometimes they do show nice stories, but the stories are about such trivial and meaningless things that they come across more like a platitude. "Okay, so we just bombarded you with 1.5 hours of horrendous suffering and debauchery, but here is a story about how a girl rescued a bunch of bunnies from a storm drain. All is well that ends well right? :thumbs:"

I went to a conference in October that was about globalization, but there was a woman there talking about the salacious tendencies of the modern media. She said that most agencies who make attempts to sell stories of virtue end up running into financial difficulties. So, I guess they are just giving people what they want?

Click to expand...

The media would get flak for producing nice stories. The masses would shout," How can you be talking about this group of people building a little league baseball park while we got a war in the middle east and North Korea continues to wave their sabers."
You just can't win.

1069 said:

In summary: if it bleeds, it leads.
The journalist's creed. ^

Click to expand...

I'm really not good at being short and concise, am I?

Goshin said:

:shrug: I have no particular opinion on whether homosexuality is curable through therapy. Not my field. I've heard evidence presented by both sides, for and against, but I reserve judgement at this point.

Click to expand...

It's not a disease. There is nothing to "cure".

independent_thinker2002 said:

It's not a disease. There is nothing to "cure".

Click to expand...

:shrug: Not everyone agrees with that statement, including some people who are homosexual.

But, as I said, that isn't my field nor something I spend much time worrying about.

Goshin said:

:shrug: Not everyone agrees with that statement, including some people who are homosexual.

But, as I said, that isn't my field nor something I spend much time worrying about.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether they agree with it or not; all that matters is whether or not they have scientific evidence to back up their claims, which they don't. If you're on the fence because opinions vary, then it sounds like you need to do more research instead of listening to what random people have to say.

Goshin said:

:shrug: Not everyone agrees with that statement, including some people who are homosexual.

But, as I said, that isn't my field nor something I spend much time worrying about.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality per se was removed as a classification of mental illness from the DSM II in 1973, but what would "experts" on the subject know?

Goshin said:

:shrug: Not everyone agrees with that statement, including some people who are homosexual.

But, as I said, that isn't my field nor something I spend much time worrying about.

Click to expand...

The people who matter have rendered their decision. The APA and the AMA. They are the experts on disease.

Orion said:

It doesn't matter whether they agree with it or not; all that matters is whether or not they have scientific evidence to back up their claims, which they don't. If you're on the fence because opinions vary, then it sounds like you need to do more research instead of listening to what random people have to say.

Click to expand...

So thousands of people who were gay, or at least lived a homosexual lifestyle and considered themselves gay and were considered gay by everyone who knew them, who (through therapy or religion or whatever) "turned hetero"... they don't know anything because some (not all) scientists have decided otherwise. Ok.

I don't really know why I care about this topic honestly, other than I'm bored right now but too tired to do anything more intresting than frack around on DP. :mrgreen:

Goshin said:

So thousands of people who were gay, or at least lived a homosexual lifestyle and considered themselves gay and were considered gay by everyone who knew them, who (through therapy or religion or whatever) "turned hetero"... they don't know anything because some (not all) scientists have decided otherwise. Ok.

Click to expand...

There are also men who lived heterosexual "lifestyles" their entire lives and at age 40 decided to stop lying to themselves and pursue meaningful relationships with other men.

You cannot provide evidence that demonstrates that those men were engaged in anything other than strong denial, unless they weren't gay in the first place. My sister was almost exclusively with women from age 20-28, but now she is happily married to a man and has a kid. She didn't identify as gay though.

I think the labeling scheme also confuses things. It creates weird expectations. My personal view is that sexuality is much more fluid. I identify as a gay man and have only been with men. Even though it seems impossible to me now, I may some day decide to be with a woman. That wouldn't make me "cured" or something.

All this shows is that sexuality is complex.

Sorry, I forgot to add... we were talking before about homosexuality as a mental disease, and you said that is something you've heard arguments from both sides on. That is one arena where I won't accommodate you. Sexuality is not a mental illness, it just garners certain social approvals or disapprovals depending on how you wish to express it.

Goshin said:

So thousands of people who were gay, or at least lived a homosexual lifestyle and considered themselves gay and were considered gay by everyone who knew them, who (through therapy or religion or whatever) "turned hetero"... they don't know anything because some (not all) scientists have decided otherwise. Ok.

I don't really know why I care about this topic honestly, other than I'm bored right now but too tired to do anything more intresting than frack around on DP. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

It's not "some scientists". It's the consensus of the scientific community as a whole.

Do you think it's possible to turn someone gay?

Jetboogieman said:

Once again it's proven, people that work so hard to demonize something, are so often self loathers, and engage in that very activity.

Click to expand...

Well said.

I wonder about the homophobes on DP. Me things they doth protest too much...

independent_thinker2002 said:

It's not "some scientists". It's the consensus of the scientific community as a whole.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Do you think it's possible to turn someone gay?

Click to expand...

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.


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.

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.

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.