8 thoughts on “CNN interviews George Rekers’ travel companion”

  1. Mary, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that all (or even most) of NARTH’s members are engaging in the same sort of behavior Rekers was.

    Let’s be clear on what NARTH’s focus is, though: they are not suggesting that people can live without sexual contact whatever their orientation might be (something no one could deny) but that the homosexual impulse can be eradicated (and should be eliminated) through certain forms of therapy. In this respect, Rekers’ contributions have not been negligible.

    At some point, one must look at the data and conclude that their conclusions about the efficacy of these treatments are questionable, especially when it appears that one of their primary researches allegedly has homosexual tendencies (I say “allegedly” simply to ward off any potential libel here).

    In either case, this is a sad tale. The young man does not appear to want the publicity and seems to have a sort of bond with Rekers. The elder man seems to be in a severe case of denial: his reputation is tarnished and his former colleagues will most likely turn their backs on him forever. It’s a pity for all involved.

  2. One man does not represent all of us. That he shows poor judgment and chose to engage himself (if that is indeed the truth) does not mean that we are all like that.

  3. Sorry … I said “straight-to-gay” … perhaps that was a Freudian slip? Make that “gay-to-straight”!

  4. Someone called this the “Waterloo” of the reparative therapy movement. I hope it is.

    I have no issue with same-sex attracted individuals trying to live according to their values by simply not acting on those impulses if that is their choice. However, when one of the most prominent salesmen of the “straight-to-gay” movement is found on a tryst with a male rent-a-boy, it must shed a new light on the entire movement for what it is: junk science.

  5. I rather think this casts doubt onto NARTH’s claims though, in a way which most people will understand. One can quote academic and scientific papers, show that what they’re saying is factually incorrect, but most people will ignore that.

    Something like this though is a “teachable moment”. Like so many others.

  6. It seemed that the episode was a little timid. It is obvious that Rekers is covering and has extremely poor judgment at the least. If NARTH let’s him off, there is no integrity there.

Comments are closed.