UPDATE: Rekers continues to deny the claims of JoVanni Roman and says he is resigning to fight those claims.
NARTH Responds to the
Recent Media Coverage of Dr. George Rekers
“I am immediately resigning my membership in NARTH to allow myself the time necessary to fight the false media reports that have been made against me. With the assistance of a defamation attorney, I will fight these false reports because I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever. I am not gay and never have been.” –George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
NARTH has accepted Dr. Rekers’ resignation and would hope that the legal process will sufficiently clarify the questions that have arisen in this unfortunate situation. We express our sincere sympathy to all individuals, regardless of their perspective, who have been injured by these events. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH. NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.
That is what TPM is reporting.
George Rekers resigned this morning from the board of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, amid a gay escort scandal.
NARTH vice president of operations David Pruden tells TPMmuckraker that Rekers first offered his resignation last Thursday, and officially resigned today.
NARTH is a group that promotes the idea that homosexuality can, and should, be cured.
Pruden also denied a report in the Miami New Times that NARTH had been involved in helping Rekers respond to the media.
“NARTH has never had any role in advising Dr. Rekers except to suggest that if he is innocent he needs to get a good lawyer,” Pruden said in an email. “He has friends who are members of NARTH and they are free to talk with, advise, and needless to say, they are free to help him in any way they might select.”
“NARTH as an organization has taken no official role in this other than asking him to explain to us what has happened and in accepting his resignation,” he said.
Apparently, at least some of Rekers’ work is going with him. The link to his controversial work opposing gay adoption is gone from the NARTH website as of this morning. NARTH’s Dave Pruden told me that NARTH did not agree with Rekers that Native Americans could be excluded from adoption based on high levels of substance abuse and other issues. As I reported last week, Rekers told the Florida court in the Gill adoption case that — using the same logic as he did in testifying against gays — he believes the rationale could be used to exclude Native Americans. As of now, Rekers remains on the NARTH Advisory Board.
UPDATE: He is now missing from the NARTH Advisory Board page as well…(May 13)
75 thoughts on “Rekers resigns from NARTH; website purge begins”
Teresa, Mary, Ann,
I can’t help but jump in. I myself am reflecting upon my sexual life and why it is that I like men so much. I am 55 and was widowed, raised three daughters, one of whom is identifying as lesbian. I am currently in the middle of a divorce from husband two, so I have been thinking about the pros and cons of marriage and sexual relationships.
You ask, ” What makes (made) you want to pursue male companionship? What’s the initial desire to hunt out a man? What’s going on in your thoughts, emotions that propels you to seek the company of men?” Good questions…
I think much of what motivates human sexuality and even bonding are various levels of narcissism which is not necessarily negative. I have experienced infatuation with several men in my life with the heart skipping a beat and increased blood flow to the genital area (I can be clinical at times). It can be intoxicating, but also requires a lot of energy. Most of the feeling I get ultimately has to do with the male enhancing my view of my femininity and attractiveness in kind of a complementarity I think. I do not look to my women friends for that. I look to men. Janelle Hallman, and Anne Paulk have described this fairly well I think.
I never had a focus on “pursuing or hunting” out a man. To me, that is not love. I am not propelled to seek the company of men – they are part of people that I interact with daily. Now, my personal thoughts are this – I hold men in the highest esteem and find their worth invaluable. It is because of this that my feelings can and do go deeper. Some women think contemptuously of men and want to selfishly use them – I do not. I appreciate them without wanting anything from them. I still do not understand them and don’t want to – I like the difference.
I have felt many of the things you describe. At one point in my teens I could no longer stand the competition for a boy’s attention that seemed to go on. I found that being with young women was easier, more enjoyable. Nor did I desire sexual intercourse at that time.
Well, time moves on and people like myself change their opinions, desires, interests. Who knows why? I don’t. Nonetheless, I did not try to force myself to date men (because I felt very uncomfortable doing so) and I too felt that I really didn’t measure up.
People change. (That’s not a religious or political statement) I’ve been fortunate enough to have friends that have allowed me to “go with my flow” sort of speak.
What you express seems to be normal and not a gay thing or straight thing at all. Just a thing.
I am going to meet a friend for lunch – wish you were going with us – we could have a great conversation. Before I leave, just wanted to comment on the below and then will answer more of your quesitons later.
My first thought is that it is a safe environment because there are no expectations put on the people there regarding interaction and also because there is a sense of familiarity because of background, etc. The feeling of no expectations can bring immediate comfort in any situation.
I don’t either. Never have.
Many, many women feel this way whether they acknowledge it or not. You are far from being alone withn these feelings. That is why, IMHO, having a friendship with a man that is safe and comfortable and enjoyable removes all of those other burdens. It also allows women to see men being authentic and genuine.
I think role modeling is a big part of that and also peer pressure and also the need to fill then empty places where they do not have love and go looking for it. The feeling of having to conquer what they are missing just might start then – I don’t know.
Well, I am not so sure that this describes me at all. I think I was a lot more like you so it does make a lot of sense to me.
Ok, off to lunch.
Ann, et. al.,
OK, ‘chemistry’ sounds like an intriguing term … part of attraction. Can we dissect that a little … tease it out, maybe. Ann, Mary, I have no idea of your gender identity or your marital status and frankly it’s not really germane to our discussion … however, I’m going to assume you’re str8. What makes (made) you want to pursue male companionship? What’s the initial desire to hunt out a man? What’s going on in your thoughts, emotions that propels you to seek the company of men? If it’s not that guys ‘turn you on in that way’, what’s the ‘attraction’? What satisfaction are you trying to achieve?
While you ponder that, I’m thinking why when I’m in the company of men, as in AA, I’m comfortable. However, I don’t have the desire to go out and pursue men … to get a guy for my own. I would feel awkward and uncomfortable … should I say, fearful doing that. I’d be scared that I couldn’t measure up as a woman; scared of being rejected or overlooked; fearful of the whole dance. Whew, that’s a revelation! When in the company of men, I have been ‘attracted’ (drawn to) certain guys who are sensitive or kind, some characteristic that soothes my inner anxiety and lets me feel comfortable.
When women are in their mid-teens, they move beyond their girl friends and begin to dress (makeup, hair, clothing, jewelry) and act in a way to attract men. They want and pursue men (almost beyond their understanding) for some reason. What is that reason? What’s going on? While you (Ann, Mary) wanted the attention of men, I was wanting the attention of women; although, not pursuing it and not in a sexual way. Does that make sense?
Enough for now.
ok, now I am going to be thinking about this all day 🙂
Attraction based just on appearance is another thing and, of course, can vary along with personal preferences. Usually women can acknowledge a man’s physical appearance and be attracted to it without having sexual thoughts connected to it.
This is a very normal assumption based on how some women talk about men. I can just assure you that most women look for chemistry like funny comments, a vulnerability, intelligence, sensitivity, friendship. All these things come from getting to know someone – not just appearance. I remember an attorney I dated – I knew I liked him but it wasnt’ until one night I saw him pour milk into a measuring cup and dip graham crackers into it slowing with a spoon before eating them. Don’t ask me why this touched me but it did – liking him had a whole different meaning for me after seeing that side of him.
My uneducated guess would be some women who are in in any kind of abusive relationship (emotional or physical) with a man, especially one that is sexually abusive, would respond postively to a woman who showed her emotional comfort and eventually sex in a way that was satisfying and did not involve abuse or force. I am not sure if this would be an enduing mindset or something that is temporary.
I am not too sure about this – it is probably true if one is traditional, however, I am seeing more women having children today without the benefit and, IMHO, esteemed role of a husband and father. There seems to be many resources and much support for this.
Great question! I think it would really depend on who you ask and at what point in their life you are asking them. My attractions today are vastly different from what they were just 5 years ago. Yes, women get crushes on men – big time! There is not difinitive criteria for it and often it is undescribable. Often discipline is needed to temper the feelings and put them into perspective.
I have heard some women pretend but have never known anyone to do so. I have known women who marry for status or money but then again, I have also known men who do the same thing. You ask such great questions – the one about attraction and what does it mean! This could be a Sunday brunch conversation that lasts late into the afternoon 🙂 For me attractions means this – I feel the better part of me is emerging and being demonstrated in every way when I think about or talk with or touch or interact on any level with the person I am attracted to.
Thanks for the advice. All my friends, believe or not, are str8 married women … well, I think they’re str8 … just assumed that by being married. Oh, foolish me, right? I think I’ll spend a little time looking into this.
We, women, are really complex when it comes to emotions and sex. The drive to have children is probably as strong as a man’s drive to have sex. We, women, want to nest … be taken care of in the sense of provision and protection while we bear children, raise and nurture them, create a comfortable ambiance (home), and sustain culture. That’s gotta be pretty instinctual (biological) in ‘normal’ women, I’d think. Seems to me, in my pea brain, that we’d put up with a lot to try to accomplish our innate desire.
Gosh, this has been a pretty enlightening piece of conversation. I’m going to pursue a little research of my own to find out what ‘attraction’ means to women I know. I assumed all along there was a ‘sexual’, in that way, component.
Thanks again Mary, Ann, Timothy for your stimulating posts. Thank you Warren for allowing this conversation to proceed … any thoughts you might have would be appreciated.
You should start asking your friends what it means to them. You’d be surprised at the responses
sorry – out minds should read our minds
I am just not sure about statistics, percetages, etc. – never have been good at that 🙂 It is my belief and understanding that men have sex primarily to have an orgasm – that is their focus from beginning to end and they can do it spontaneously and without too much thought. The complexity is for women – we are emotional about sex. We have out minds (greatest sex organ) and one particular part of our anatomy that, when stimulated, will give us an orgasm. A smart and thoughtful man will know how to position himself, through intercourse, to acccommodate that. Other than intercourse, we know there are many other ways for couples to be together and have a satisfying sex life. It all depends on the couple and their motivations. I also know lots of couples (all ages) who just don’t have sex anymore – all for different reasons – and live very full lives with each other.
Oh, I think this is a very good possibility, if not a probability for some.
Thanks – I understand and this makes sense.
There is an interesting interview on Popeater.com with Melissa Etheridge about labels and terms if anyone wants to read it. I like her a lot and especialluy enjoyed reading her perspective about this.
Warren should have a little side thread for our off-topic discussion.
Anyway, Mary, why I think I’m gay is because I get crushes on women. I feel more emotionally attached to women. I’ve had relationships with women. I’ve never wanted to get married, or necessarily to even date a guy; although, I’ve gone on dates. However, I enjoy guys, especially gay guys; but, not enough to want to spend a lifetime with one. I’d spend a lifetime with a woman, though.
I never, until today, ever thought to ask another woman what it meant to be ‘attracted’ to a man. I assumed it meant being sexually turned-on by a guy, which attraction would ultimately (if a romantic love or whatever developed) lead to marriage. Women want to get married … it’s some sort of instinctual drive … I get the feeling that the desire to ‘marry’ and have children outweighs ‘attraction’; whatever that means. You gotta like guys enough to want to spend your life with them … I have absolutely no desire to do that … never have.
Interesting conversation, though … rather thought provoking.
Uhhhh…. remember there are couples who marry before the act. So there really is love before all of that. But yeah…after the marriage and things are going good (assuming) I know many women that really like to horizontal tango, give a full cowgirl, etc… etc…
But I would not say you are gay because you never felt that way about a guy. I don’t know why you’re gay – or really WHY YOU think you’re gay.
My best friend of many, many years was married to a guy whom she could not stand having sex with. Make sense??? But that did not mean she was gay. It really wasn’t until after her divorce that she really began to enjoy sex with her new boyfriend. Go figure??? She never even considered the gay thing.
OK, let me upfront, blunt, and candid about this. Remember, I’m serious about this. ‘In that way’ means to me, you want to do the horizontal tango … right? So, head-over-heels, over-the-top, geez-you’re-the-greatest … means you wanna do stuff????
If so, that is really foreign to me. I guess that’s why I’m gay, no?
I agree. I think the sexual satisfaction bar has been raised and given a unique position (LOL!!!) in our culture. Society is definitely more sefl centered about sexual satisfaction.
yes, romantically, head over heels, blinded, etc…. and then there are some gold diggers too…. that is in any camp
OK, when you and I are through laughing, does ‘fall in love’ mean ‘in that way’?????
I think expectations for sexual satisfaction have dramatically increased in the last 100 years…cleanliness, aromatics, education, entertainment and penicillin have all helped raise the bar…
pardon the pun.
LOL!!! I used to wonder myself. And yes, women really do fall in love with men.
Good thought. The percentage may actually be lower (orgasm by women that is) for just ‘regular’ sex. The ‘G spot’ stuff floating around doesn’t seem to hold water. Most women would be having orgasms during childbirth if that was the case. The question, though, Mary is how often do women meet other women and engage in a satisfying sexual act? What would lead women to do that … str8’s that is?
I think the maternal instinct and the idea (still common) that a man will provide and protect women drives most women to marry. I’d like to ask a question in all seriousness … are str8 women actually physically attracted to a man, in that way? Do they get crushes on men? Or, is it more a feeling of comfort with a guy?
I like men. I find it easy to talk to most men. I enjoy a handsome face. But, I’ve never been attracted to a man in that way. I could certainly be like other women, and just pretend … but, do most women just pretend. What does attraction mean from a st8 woman’s point of view?
Teresa and Ann,
Doesn’t something like only 15% of women have an orgasm during actual intercourse? Very low number. So for a satisfying sex life, if a woman is not adding additional behviors to her sex life other than intercourse – the liklihood of her enjoyment is very low.
I’ve oftern wondered if some of these women didn’t meet up with a woman, engage in a satisfying sexual act and determine then that they were bi or lesbian becaue they never orgasmed with a man?
Funny, you made me remember something.
My father’s parents married when he was 35 and she was 25. They had two kids in the first four years, but the second pregnancy was physically rough on my grandmother that, as she put it, she “crossed her legs” and they got separate beds.
The sex life of my grandparents was a grand total of about four years.
There was absolutely nothing about my grandmother to suggest to me that she might have been a lesbian (though I have suspicions about my grandfather). But while she enjoyed nudge-nudge, wink-wink insinuation (she loved Three’s Company), as far as I can tell they never tried to find any accommodation around their own sex life.
I think it’s just laziness in language. I think that those who are referring to him as “gay” mean that he has some measure of same-sex attraction, whether that be homosexuality or bisexuality.
Good question. This in kinda confusing. From the little I know; and believe me, it’s little; most bi’s are women. I think Warren needs to explain the dilemma we’re in about this.
What’s ‘bi’? Are most ‘bi’s’ women? Most ‘change’, even if relatively small, happens to women. Is this all about biological differences in men and women? Women, as I stated before, can be married, have children and never enjoy sex … never have to, to accomplish what would be considered a str8 life. We can bury all that stuff about loving our mate, and get on with it. Maybe, the maternal drive outweighs everything for women.
I’m clueless right now, except for the fact that I know that I’m a lesbian, and cannot see myself in a marriage at all. I’ve never wanted children. Maybe, all the lesbians being able to have children now w/o a guy is stopping many women from ‘change’ … at least, the ‘change’ to marry.
If it can be proven that Rekers was sexually involved with this man he was traveling with, would the term bisexual l apply to him? Some are referring to him as gay.
I am not sure – I just remember what she said at the time and it was what I wrote in the prior post.
I don’t understand this. To me this is ‘bi’ behavior … isn’t ‘bi’ an orientation?
I’m not sure about change from one orientation to another – I think Cynthia Nixon and Meredith Baxter Birney have experienced this from interviews I have seen or read and it came only after falling in love with another woman. I remember Anne Heche did as well during her relationship with Ellen Degeneres. I don’t think any were married at the time they fell in love with another woman. I am referring to these women only because their stories are public. I also remember Julie Cypher was married at the time she fell in love with Melissa Etheridge. She decided after many years and two children later that she was not gay and did not want to be in the relationship any longer.
I think the important thing to know, at least for me, is that it was love, and not orientation, that brought these women together.
That you choose to live a life according to your principles and beliefs that give you a feeling of strength and wholeness.
Chely Wright on Oprah … a now ‘out’ lesbian had a number of sexual relationships with men. For years, considered str8, now gay. So, she denied being gay all those years, and being high-fem, everyone believed her. So, is she now ex-str8?
I’ve known a number of married women who have indulged in homosexual activity well after they were married never having identified previously as gay. I’m wondering how many married women ‘change’ their orientation from str8 to gay?
Women and sexuality … are we all ‘bi’, perhaps?
What does this mean?
We (you and I) have different respects for the different selections to choose from when living with sexual integrity is concerned.
I agree with your statment. My confirmation comes from stories of women who have changed or shifted significantly in their romantic/sexual interests. Your’s seems to be confirmed by those who have not changed or shifted in their desires but you seek to live with sexual integrity, also.
Thanks for the encouragement. I like the word ‘change’ used in reference to Exodus and its behavior.
It never ceases to amaze me that our lives (homosexuals) have become a ping-pong game for a goodly number of people. We’re treated, in many cases, as if we have no intelligence and that others need to hold our hand or tell us what to do. At times, this becomes a tad bit irritating.
p.s. – does anyone know when New Directions separated from Exodus?
I am sorry if I did not check the facts first – I should have.
If we are discussing the idea of being “up-front, blunt, and candid” about offering “change”, then searching for anecdote is very unwise. One tends to only find confirmation for whatever opinion one has.
And the problem with even going for non-media folk can be seen in this recent article in the Miami Herald:
If we accepted the witness of this no-doubt sincere guy, we could promise “change” to the hopeful. But while it might be sincere, it would not really be valid testimony.
I think it is wisest to rely on what limited research we have available and simply tell them that:
1. Some people report change in their attractions.
2. Other people who have in the past reported change in their attractions found that it was not adequate or permanent.
3. Limited research shows that a tiny percent succeed in achieving a not uncomplicated heterosexual adjustment, but this is not the same thing as what we generally mean by heterosexuality. For this small group, however, it is fulfilling and adequate.
4. It appears that those who are most successful at living with a conservative sexual ethic place less emphasis on change in attraction and more on conformity to their understanding of God’s expectations. Those who too strongly seek to become heterosexual may run the risk of losing both their effort and their faith.
5. Significant segments of Christianity disagree over Biblical sexual requirements for same-sex attracted persons. Before expending long periods of effort or running the risk of losing their faith, potential participants should first investigate those teachings to be certain of what they really believe.
or so I think
Tell the true story of yourself, at least, we can do that. As for those you mentioned in the media – I would not follow them. I have friends whose stories and lives I find encouraging. But like I said, it takes time to find those people who are not in the media and are authentic and genuine and real.
Don’t give up hope. While Alan’s comments are indeed shocking and saddening (and based on a very perverse understanding of Christ), there is always room for change.
I’ve seen Exodus and Alan move away a bit from Change Theology and instead towards Identity Theology. There is hope that some day he can find grace theology and relationship with Christ theology.
Perhaps if he ever truly moves in the direction of his stated goal of separating Exodus from its political activism, he’ll have the freedom to pursue a theology that is not dependent on political identities.
Teresa: You are correct. New Directions is no longer affiliated with Exodus.
Sorry the last comment should not have been directed to you.
I’m a strong supporter, including financially, of Wendy Gritter and New Directions. I assumed all along she and her group were NOT in the Exodus tent.
I’m astounded and saddened by this.
I’m left speechless by this.
I’m a strong supporter, including financially, of Wendy Gritter and New Directions. I assumed all along she and her group were NOT in the Exodus tent.
We are not without some research.
There was, for example, the Jones and Yarhouse study. It started with 98 participants and after 7 years had turned exactly zero of them into heterosexuals.
It had some folk who they identified as “not uncomplicated heterosexual adjustment” but, as Stanton Jones clarified:
This is the limited longitudinal research we have, and this is what should be presented candidly.
As for anecdotal evidence, that is quite problematic. Whose story do we go with? And what story do we tell?
If is John Paulk on the cover of Newsweek claiming recovery, or John Paulk later fleeing Mr. P’s?
Is it Greg and Cheryl Quinlan’s video testimony about their happy marriage, or their divorce papers?
Is it Michael Johnston’s appearance in It’s Not Gay or his television commercial paid by Coral Ridge Ministries, or is it his later unsafe-sex-and-drugs orgies.
Do we point to these folk and say, “yes, but after they fell, they returned to continue their struggle”? Or do we discuss all of the former ex-gays, ranging from Michael Bussee to Noe Gutierrez to Darlene Bogle, who have no longer believe in orientation change and have found various ways to reconcile their attractions to their faith?
I believe you are mistaken.
New Directions is no longer a part of Exodus precisely for having a more realistic way of thinking. If they are a role model (as they should be), it is a model for separation from Exodus.
I think that your perception of rejection from Exodus for not seeking to “change” is not unfounded.
In his 2006 book, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, Alan Chambers said as much:
And last March, he reiterated the idea in an article for Charisma magazine in which he denounced a couple of lesbians who chose to forsake sex but live together for companionship. He said, “It isn’t only the sex that makes homosexuality sinful, it is choosing to live outside of God’s best.”
This is very consistent with the accusations that Dr. Throckmorton has had laid against him that he is a “killer of hope” for failing to spread untruthful claims about “change”.
Teresa, according to some Exodus statements, your decision to live a conservative sexual ethic has no value unless you also “reject your identity”. You are still a vile sinner and enemy of God and no different from a whore.
This has been my experience – each ministry, while sharing common values and beliefs, have their own way of ministering. Wendy Gritter of New Directions is on the more realistic way of thinking and, I believe, has become a role model for other Exodus leaders to aspire to. Also, it is not an option for others to be happy about whether you or I or anyone else is straight or gay or something in between or something else – it is your happiness and contentment that is paramount here and not their’s. Your decision to be chaste and also authentic is to be respected – If you detect someone is not accepting of you – RUN – and come to the many who are.
So, I have it wrong concerning NARTH and Exodus? Are you saying that for NARTH and Exodus they’re just as happy and accepting of me if I’m a lesbian as if I was str8? I will take your experience into account. However, I’ve just spoken to another SSA woman whose experience with Exodus was quite the contrary of yours. She related to me that they were all about ‘change’, and were quite adamant about that. Exodus is quite the big tent with lots of small ministries inside it. Perhaps, it depends on what Exodus allied ministry one is involved with.
At one time, not too long ago, I would have agreed with you that that was the perspective of NARTH and Exodus. However, experience has shown me differently. and I am humbled. Most of those I encounter with either group seem to be accepting of all kinds of personal circumstances. Being straight does not make you more acceptable than a man or woman who makes no shifts in their interests.
AGREED. However, I do believe, we are lacking in research and can best work off of anecdotal evidence from the personal stories of friends, those in like company, etc… And it takes a lot to network and find others who pursue this journey with some success.
Also, I like the whole Catholic idea, too. I’m a Catholic by tradition, having been raised in the Catholic church and have always found that their catechism on teaching others the gospel to be very personal and individual, and spirit filled.
I was not clear in my elucidation of this statement. I did not mean that SSA’s who desire change shouldn’t seek that. What I meant is that often members of NARTH or Exodus appear to find the SSA condition unacceptable. You need to be str8 for them to accept us as OK. Often that judgment of others of ‘not acceptable’ gets internalized by us. Again, it is just my opinion about NARTH and Exodus after reading quite a bit of their literature. They seem loathe to offer the very acceptable (at least to me) choice of helping a person live a chaste life.
SSA’s pursuing change is great. Those offering to assist in the process of change is, also, great. However, the ones offering the change should be up-front, blunt, and candid about the actual statistics based on some good longitudinal studies.
My personal bias is against NARTH and Exodus, as you are no doubt aware. I ascribe to the Catholic Courage Goals where the goal is accepting who we are and living chastely. They are not at all opposed to those SSA’s that would like to pursue change and are very supportive of that choice. However, they are very realistic about the fact that financially many SSA’s cannot afford therapy or the many long years it may entail to realize ‘change’, some change’, ‘no change’.
Couldn’t have said it better.
I believe this is a very important thought/statement that needs to be addressed.
What is not acceptable is that anyone should have to feel they are not acceptable as they are.
There is a huge difference between individuals who cannot have congruence in their life if they act on their homosexuality and those who do have congruence when living actively and openly with it. Too many times I find we confuse the two and address the wrong issue.
False premises, regardless of what the biases are, and those that promote them as axiomatic, are cruel and should be challenged at every turn.
I understand. While the support might not be very forthcoming in the general population, it is there in smaller groups and I believe growing as people are understanding this individual perspective and respecting it. Thank you for posting and I hope you continue to do so.
Yes, these can and do determine how a person will live their life and respond to circumstances – often they seem to transcend life itself if that is our belief.
I disagree in using the words “not acceptable as you are”. We are all accepted and many of us desire to change the way we percieve something about ourselves. If an obese person can change – then so can I. If a person can change gender – then so can I change my mind on how I view sex and love etc…
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to change. Nor is it said anywhere that having SSA is unacceptable. Many do accept that aspect and simple do not respond in a gay affirming lifestyle (for lack of a better phrase).
A person personal philosophy, doctrine, faith, or religion will be the foundation of their premise. I wouldn’t expect everyone’s to be the same across the board.
Well said … my boundaries are to live a chaste life, and not act on my inclinations. It seems being SSA and living a chaste life is not a common choice, and it is difficult to find others to help support this position. I know Gay Christian Network has the Side B position, but it really is a small contingent there and everywhere else. NARTH and Exodus with their position of being ‘fixed’ and the ‘out’ lifestyle own the territory for the current SSA game.
I really wish there were more avenues for sharing a chaste life.
Yes, yes, and yes to your analogy of the lottery and change. I wish people would be realistic about what is going on. The essential thought process behind the ‘change’ approach is you’re not acceptable as you are. The very nature of SSA makes one an untouchable in some way to the NARTH and Exodus folks. The last statement is just my opinion. I’m sure those involved wouldn’t see what they do as unaccepting to SSA’s.
I”m all for everyone living the life that is happiest and most fulfilling. I’m not so much for doing so based on false premises.
The problem with NARTH and Rekers (and historically Exodus, though that seems to be changing) is that the ‘happy life’ is based on the premise that one can become heterosexual through a series of steps (or divine intervention). And that is increasingly being revealed to be a false premise.
If anyone out there is changing the general direction of their attractions, it is not through any identifiably and repeatable method.
So while I don’t disparage those who seek to change their orientation, I feel towards them a bit like I do for those who seek to win the lottery. If buying that ticket gives you hope and dreams, go right ahead… just don’t make any life decisions based on the assumption that you will win.
But as for those who accept reality and don’t insist on the miraculous, I think they may have found what Paul was speaking of in Philippians 4. Whether they elect to construct a life consistent with a conservative sexual ethic or if they find liberty in rethinking scripture, they can be content.
While this is one way of thinking about the issue, it certainly isn’t the only way. Many who share the same issue do not feel the same way and are living the happiest life they can within the boundaries they have chosen for themselves.
It is that simple for some.
Others have chosen the life that you have and been miserable. For them the choice is Simply Different.
I have read the comments here and there seems to be a lot of talk about the person and what we may or may not do. How about the ISSUE. Bottom line, why would anyone CHOOSE to make their life as difficult as they possibly can, alienating family, “friends”, co-workers, – yeah this is something ANYONE with a brain would CHOOSE to do to themselves, and of course through therapy they can see the wrong choice they have made and put back on the right track. Come on people, get with the program, you have two CHOICES in this life, take the cards you are delt – whether through biology or psycology (I have not decided which yet) and live the happiest life you can with a single partner (mine of 24 years by the way) or live the life some would have you live in accordance with the norm and be miserable.
“Women are able to change attractions…men, it appears do only rarely.”
Some women, the percentage is still small (Warren, is this statement true), can change, or spontaneously change, their attractions. Unless the ‘change’ is spontaneous, the process takes years, and if with a reparative therapist thousands of dollars. I contend it’s still a small percentage … but more than men, I agree.
And what told Dave Pruden about homosexuals with the same arguments?
Women are able to change attractions…men, it appears do only rarely.
Some continue to clump the two…
Rekers, if he is gay, is not a woman or a lesbian.
Rekers claims, at best, are an example of some SSA men.
It always amazes me when groups which asks to be seen in their uniqueness, wish to clump and simplify arguments.
I’d like us to stop thinking of ourselves as Jews, Samaratins, Gays, and straights. And just start putting us all into the neighbor category.
Why, it’s almost like the American College of Pediatricians, with perhaps 400 members, most of whom are not pediatricians (not to be confused the American Academy of Pediatrics, which boasts 60,000 pediatricians as members).
Meanwhile… although the “rentboy” image makes them look bad… all sorts of GLBT organisations are coming to Jo vanni’s aid. Trying to protect him from the media storm, even though him “telling all” would advance their cause. Treating him as what he is, a young, rather naive and innocent human being.
What under other circumstances would be called a truly Christian response. Even from some people I personally have had run-ins with in the past, some genuine woman-hating transphobes of the worst kind, privileged rich white gay men who I would not normally have a single good word to say about. But here, they’ve shown charity. Even to the extent of sympathy with Dr Rekers.
It’s been an eye-opener to me.
Luke 10:25-37 comes to mind.
Well – I did my blocking etc… all wrong – but you get the idea.
I disagree in that, he makes a statement about himself and it is getting confused with the rest of us. If his actions as reported by the assistant are real, then what it speaks of is about Rekers – not anyone else. Not NARTH, not FRC, not anyone else nor their leaders. He has manipulated everyone. Everyone does not act like him.
If the guy who says it is possible through therapy hasn’t done it then one must question the validity of the claims
Mary – Rekers is not relevant to you but he is relevant to professional claims of cure. If the guy who says it is possible through therapy hasn’t done it then one must question the validity of the claims. If Rekers is not gay/bi and really means it then that really lowers the bar for what notgay is.
Just remember that this story belongs to Rekers and not others. HIs shadow does not fall on all of us. It is too bad that others are inclined to do so but his actions belong to him and no one else.
So did he resign his place on the NARTH board or resign his membership in NARTH overall? If he has been wronged then why resign from NARTH? Doing so only makes NARTH sound like a Christian ministry rather than a professional organization.
“I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever. I am not gay . . .”
Just remember this whenever one of NARTH’s success stories emphatically declares that he is no longer gay. Good bet that that individual is not gay in the same way that Dr. Rekers is not gay.
And then there were none….
Agatha Christie tells her story again.
Comments are closed.