Various Internet sites are claiming to “out” Rev. George Alan Rekers, a Baptist minister with a long anti-homosexual history of writings and sermons. For his part, Rekers is threatening a defamation lawsuit after stories appeared that he had hired a 20-year-old young man to travel with him from a gay escort site.
Rekers has been a leader in gay-to-straight conversion-therapy and is a co-founder in 1983 with James Dobson of Family Research Council.
Rekers insisted that he did not know that his companion worked as a gay male escort when he took him on a 10-day European vacation. He said that he hired him because he could not life his own luggage due to a surgery. He does admit that he learned of his profession halfway through the trip and that he did meet the the man on Rentboy.com. The site advertises young men “up for anything” and contains pornographic details of their physiques.
Referring to the escort as “Lucien,” Rekers reportedly stated in a message to his followers:
“I seek to lovingly share two types of messages to them [homosexuals], as I did with the young man called ‘Lucien’ in the news story: It is possible to cease homosexual practices to avoid the unacceptable health risks associated with that behavior, and the most important decision one can make is to establish a relationship with God for all eternity by trusting in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, including homosexual sins.”
As a public figure, Rekers will have difficulty under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in pursuing a lawsuit. Moreover, given the public vacation, it may be equally difficult to allege the disclosure of embarrassing private facts.
40 thoughts on “Anti-Homosexual Minister Threatens Lawsuit After Papers Reveal Trip With Gay Male Escort”
Before homosexuals can be “cured,” it has to be established that homosexuality is a disease.
Dr. Rekers is the latest in a procession of prominent men who have attempted to to hide their genuine nature behind the banner of religion. There have been many, there will be more, and we will continue to be astonished by the lies they have told and the fresh lies they vomit upon being exposed.
These are profoundly miserable and dishonest people, and it can be argued that they deserve every agony their lies bring upon them. This is particularly true in the case of younger, post-Stonewall examples such as Ted Haggard, who gained from the social advances made by openly gay people while actively working against us. Now, it seems, all his efforts are against himself.
However, 70-yr. old George Rekers is of the generation of men who married despite being aware of homosexual leanings but would never consider divorcing because of them. Instead, these boys have played around with men their entire married lives. In some cases, their wives knew about it and kept a tortured silence; I know some women who actually encouraged their gay hubbies to play around to keep the marriage (and social status) intact.
As a working musician in the south, I have met a lot of these closet cases in the music ministries of big, mainline churches, the vast majority of which are very unfriendly toward homosexuals. When these guys are found out — and they frequently are — juicy scandals ensue.
One such gay man in my community still lives, a la Ted Haggard, with his wife, and despite being a talented musician, he has had to take menial work at Home Depot, etc. He will never work in another church — unless he’s willing to look at a Metropolitan Community Church. The first time I played for him I knew he was the sort of flamer Helen Keller could have sniffed out in about five minutes, so I was not surprised when his house of cards collapsed. When I have encountered him in the store, he won’t even look at me. Shame, embarrassment, fear?
The truth, as they say, will out. It may even set you free, but not, sadly, in every case.
Everett was also a kind of cold and distant person with his family. Being personally flawed doesn’t mean he wasn’t right.
The arrogance of this man, that he thought he could get away with this. Poor Lucien, the escort, having to have any physical contact with this bag of shit. Hope Lucien can find some sort of employment that doesn’t involve catering to the needs of someone like this. There’s some pretty graphic description of Rekers’ preferences at the Miami link.
I may be the only sick person to have done this, but did any of you have the inclination, and perhaps fortitude, to look up rentboy.com? It is unmistakeably a gay pornographic site. Complete with the ‘Are you sure you’re 18?’ intro. There is no possible way that you could mistake it for a place to rent anything other than man sex.
Political figures should never be caught with a dead girl or a live boy. I just skimmed through this thread but I’m under the impression that Rekers was caught with a dead cat?
BIL, loved the “luggage” joke.
I think you could also explain the idea of perfection based on infinite bangs and busts.
“Hugh Everett’s theory was rejected by thsis advisor, John Wheeler, who attached his name to the thesis, and it was roundly rejected by the physics community. John Wheeler’s famous comment was the theory contained “too much metaphysical baggage.” As a result of its rejection, Hugh Everett left academia and started a national defense company. He eventually made millions of dollars.”
God dam a real fascist tool 🙂
Blouise : “lottakatz I offered a perfectly good set-up for Anonymously Yours
You beat him to the punch (line):)
It was such a exquisite set-up I could not resist. You are becoming the George Burns of the blawg- the perfect straight-man with a wicked sense of humor. I find your postings interesting as well as enjoying your sense of humor.
But I will poach your set-ups for AY if I get the chance 🙂
You omit there is more than one solution to the problem. I prefer Everett’s. Seems that chair you sit upon has a wobble.
And why are your panties all bunched up over a physics joke anyway? Are you upset because I’m not letting you spout brown shirted corporatist nonsense elsewhere unchallenged? Is that why you’ve taken me to task on a joke? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You’re a bit grumpier than usual today. There are plenty of decaf brands out there that taste as good as the real thing, Byron.
“Until you observe the cat, it is neither alive nor dead but both and therefore contradicts the idea that something cannot contain multiple contradictory data points, i.e. to be and not be.”
“The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition undergoes collapse into a definite state only at the exact moment of quantum measurement.”
“According to Schrodinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.”
“Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics.”
It would seem Schrodinger and I are in agreement.
Looks like Albert agrees with me as well writing to Schrodinger – “You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality”
I guess I am in good company and they seem to disagree with you.
As my hero states “There’s a Sucker born everyday” Appropriate or not.
Blouise: ” Did he actually think rent-a-boy would keep his mouth shut…”
(Not to lower the level of the discourse too much but) I’m thinking that expectation would have negated the reason for taking Mr. R-Boy on the trip
I offered a perfectly good set-up for Anonymously Yours
You beat him to the punch (line):)
Byron, the whole point of the exercise is that until you observe- choose- the cat exists in both states at the quantum level. At the quantum level the expectation of the observer shapes the result. Once you get beyond the point of accepting that a choice has been made that limits your quantum options (“historical convention”) you also get to choose what’s in the box. I’m choosing between a large plate stacked almost impossibly high with dark chocolate-iced cream puffs or a humongous, home made banana cream pie. When I open my box either option will be delicious; “historical convention” will just leave you with a dead or angry, cooped-up cat.
Like the old saying goes: If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one there to hear it, the forest doesn’t even exist.
(Actually, the concept of a multiverse makes that revision of an old saying obsolete but it illustrates my point.)
🙂 I’m just play’n with you Byron, not arguing. Ummmmm, donuts. I forgot fresh, warm donuts. We’re going to need a bigger box. 🙂
To actually address a point you made that started this train of playfulness between you and BIL and now invited or not, myself; your statement: “The psychology of this individual must be horrendous. Maybe he can now live the remainder of his life at peace.” I don’t think so but it would be nice if he could.
Considering the life-long self loathing this man feels and the way it’s twisted his life into a hurtful crusade against the very nature of his own being I’m thinking there’s not enough time left for him to get right with himself. If people just stopped believing that this life is nothing more than a dress rehearsal (the fault of religion IMO) and allowed their decisions to be driven by reason rather than faith, most folks would probably be a lot happier. Mr. Rekers has constructed his own hell.
Wayne in MInnesota:
“You responders are an unfair lot. George “Home” Rekers CLEARLY has dedicated his life to converting the hummaseksha community one rentboy at a time! So what’s the problem? Why doesn’t anybody believe this poor man? (snork)”
Ah, the Lord’s servants work in mysterious ways.
Because of you,”snork” is now my favorite onomatopoeia.
You are truly a simple creature if you don’t think information paradox is possible (especially in an internal belief like self-image). Unless you are psychic and are able to tell the cat’s state without observation. Because your claim to lack of confusion would require that you be able to observe without observing. Which is simply impossible. When you haven’t observed a cat, it’s in both states you inability to grasp that concept notwithstanding. Any assumption you make about it’s state is merely that: an assumption. It’s counter-intuitive but that’s the point of Schrodinger’s thought experiment: it’s a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the counter-intuitive nature quantum mechanics, not a literal experiment(he never built a cat killing machine nor did he encourage doing so).
No I did not choose it to be a cat. that is what historical convention says it is. If I want to communicate the death of the cat I must call it a cat to be understood.
No, Byron. You’d assume wrong. The moon exists whether you believe it does or not and independent of observation. The point was that mutually contradictory states are possible within the same dataspace dependent upon observation. Observation does not change reality, it merely fixes it in time and/or space, and the nature of said observation is relative to the observers position in spacetime to the observed.
“The point was that mutually contradictory states are possible within the same dataspace dependent upon observation.”
No contradiction is possible, the cat is either dead or alive. That you may not have observed the state yet is not a predicate of the cat being alive or dead. It is dead or alive independent of your observation. Your observation lets you know the cat is dead or alive.
Blouise: ” Did he actually think rent-a-boy would keep his mouth shut…”
(Not to lower the level of the discourse too much but) I’m thinking that expectation would have negated the reason for taking Mr. R-Boy on the trip 🙂
Byron: …”A dead cat is still a cat in any event. It no longer has animation but it is still recognizable as a cat.”
Ummm, To take it a step further, it’s only a cat (in any state) because you choose it to be a cat.
Comments are closed.