George Alan Rekers is a fairly well-known anti-gay activist. He's one of those scientific types who claims that being gay is curable, is best known for his claim that adopted children of gay couples are more prone to suicide, and is also one of the founders of the Patriarchy Research Council, with James Dobson. Oh, and of course he's a Christian minister.
He just got back from a ten-day European tour — crusaders for heterosexuality deserve a break now and then, too — when it was discovered that he had hired a "rent boy" for the trip. He had picked the young fellow out from a web site that describes his sexual attributes and offered explicit services for pay, but Dr Rekers said he just hired him to…"lift his luggage". I am unfamiliar with that euphemism, but I'm sure it was fun.
To even greater amusement, it is also revealed that Rekers, staunch opponent of adoption by gay couples, adopted a child — a 16 year old boy.
They hypocrisy is strong in this one.
- Log in to post comments
Packin' the old valise...
Dr Rekers said he just hired him to…"lift his luggage". I am unfamiliar with that euphemism, but I'm sure it was fun.
That is going to have me chuckling all day :-).
In other news, the sun rose in the East today...
It's going to be up there with "hiking Appalachian trail"
It's curable, and he'll keep on curing it as many times as necessary.
He's been cured hundreds of times, proof that it's curable.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
another in a long line... won't stop people from buying into the next one.
Dr Rekers said he just hired him to…"lift his luggage". I am unfamiliar with that euphemism, but I'm sure it was fun.
Shall we put my junk in your trunk?
I believe it has something to do with not sparing the rod.
The "Patriarchy Research Council"? Really?
Really?
I'm sure he chose him for his "wide stance".
He's an anti-gay activist. I would have been more surprised if he didn't hire a rentboy.
We know what they are going to say...
It was the devil and the sin of homosexuality that is constantly attacking the faithful and godly!
Unfalsifiability at its best.
Haggard's Law strikes again.
Dr Rekers said he just hired him to…"lift his luggage". I am unfamiliar with that euphemism, but I'm sure it was fun.
I think he might have meant "Handle his package".
An extremely quick search failed to find any other uses of that phrase as an euphemism. I wonder if a new one has just been invented here?
As the MNT pointed out, Rekers didn't seem to have any problems scurrying about Miami International with his own luggage in tow.
The mind boggles*. How can someone actively hate themselves so much that they actually crusade against their own self interests?
It truly is a fucked up world we live in.
*Or bottles, if you will.
When he says
"Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes"
I guess he meant "This gay man"
As a youngster I was given to shoot-from-the-hip psychoanalysis. I'd pick a person or behavior I didn't like and cook up some glib, facile, and usually-unflattering explanation. I've learned better over the years, and I'm not really given to that sort of snap judgment any more, but I still am careful to avoid them.
So I find it frustrating when EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS an anti-gay activist gets caught having gay sex. I'm trying to be mature, here, people. Maybe even sophisticated. Can you help me out just a LITTLE?
Okay, I give up. All anti-gay activists are closet homosexuals. ALL. There, you satisfied?
Sadly, I can even see this being true. The amount of bullying (by other children, other parents, and even teachers) inflicted on a child of gay parents is likely to be quite high. If I wanted to support this nut's harebrained ideas, I guess it could be said that gay parents cause this. On the other hand, since I'm not feeling that charitable, I'd rather say that fundamentalist religionists like Mr. Rekers cause it.
What is relevant about the child's age and gender? Getting pretty close to insinuating he adopted a child for the purpose of sexual gratification.
... pseudo-scientific ...
Didn't people read the Herb Grossman blog? Homosexuality is a myth. Gays just need to fight off the supernatural. Man...people that frequent this blog are thick! /sarcasm>
@9
No, not really. Clever turn of phrase, and more accurate than their real name, but not really.
@17
How do you know what's against his own self interests? He's got money - enough to travel to Europe and hire a (alleged) gigolo as a companion for the trip. He's respected in his own circles. Sure he can't live as an "out" gay man but maybe for him that's in his own interests and living as an out gay man holds no interest for him. He may actually get off on the "perverted" nature of his lifestyle and resent attempts to make it normal rather than a perversion he indulges himself in.
You never know - humans are strange beasts.
I can feel sorry for gays or bisexuals who are so freaked by their sexuality that they stay firmly in the closet and won't stand up publicly for who they are in LGBT issues. I can even feel sorry for them (less so) when they make nasty remarks about gays, presumably as an attempt to hide who they are.
Not this evil fucker. He has actively worked against an entire group of people, trying to limit their civil rights and making a nice pile while he was at it (I wish I could afford a nice vacation like that, but then, I don't make my money by lying). I suppose he'll claim he isn't gay too. "The devil caught me with my spiritual pants down, honest."
And people call openly gay and lesbian people perverts. Sorry. This guy is the pervert.
*Tongue in cheek*
Why does everyone assume he was doing something naughty with the boy. Maybe he took him away to, um, you know, change him... =P
HA!
Oh, you guys are so mean! Do you expect Rekers to carry his Testament Tickler and his Res-erection Rabbit all alone in his Soddomite - er, Samsonite "luggage"? :P
Maybe he took him away to, um, you know, change him... =
Like David Vitter?
I miss the old days when the girlfriend and I would lift luggage three or four times a day just for the fun of it. And oh, the variety. Sometimes we'd pack the garment bag, other times the suitcase, and on a few rare occasions, the leather valise. Working up a sweat hefting this giant chest... that was a two-person job. Once we packed up every bag we had, all in a row, just because we were feeling frisky.
Nowadays we come home from our respective workplaces cranky and tired, and I just don't have the energy for packing. Sure, we still stuff a few things into the bags now and then, but the damn zipper is always getting stuck, and you have to spend like 20 minutes getting the damn thing moving again. It doesn't help that it often feels like I'm doing all the lifting.
Sometimes I catch myself thinking about lifting luggage with someone else. Some young porter maybe. But while the prospect of a whole new luggage set is thrilling, it's easier to stay with what I know. The comfort of familiarity: this combination opens that Samsonite; that tote bag needs to be supported by the bottom... that sort of thing. Maybe our passions are fading, or maybe they're just maturing.
Fortunately our sex life is great, so it all balances out.
This is getting ridiculous. I think we should save time and find all the STRAIGHT Christian homophobes.
Ted Haggard George Alan Rekers is completely heterosexual....
@ Kraid #29:
Now everyone is in the lab trying to find out what I am laughing about!! Awesome post!
Methinks that George Alan Rekers should pack his luggage inside The Luggage.
It is the least he deserves.
It seems he has a number of books for sale at Amazon; with no entries on his review page.
http://www.amazon.com/George-Alan-Rekers/e/B001HCU0GY/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_…
That was a big fish to catch!
Abstruseoddity (@21):
While the evidence to raise it to the status of an accusation isn't on offer, do you really consider that an illegtimate item of concern?
I would never want to advance the pernicious meme of associating homosexuality with paedophilia, but this is, under any construction, not a healthy, self-aware gay man, but instead a person who seems to have a fairly sick and twisted relationship to his own sexuality. And, of course, it's not all that common (AFAIK) for a single adult man to adopt a 16 yo boy.
I fear Rekers may be a pervert not because I falsely equate homosexuality with perversion, but because religious repression of homosexuality, and the consequent self-loathing that must come with being a secretly gay man who promotes religious repression of homosexuality, are powerfully perverting forces.
Pseudoscientific, PZ. Since the peer-reviewed literature is against him.
Now now, a mimic isn't a solution to everything. It's a solution to many things but not everything.
A mimic?
Huh?
mimics
It's a pretty standard monster, you know.
From now on, I'm just going to assume that every well-known anti-gay activist is gay. I'm batting 1.000 on this assumption so far.
As my mother always said to me, Me thinks he dost protest too much. Isn't it always the most anti-gay politicians that end up exiting the closet?
Gyeong Hwa Pak, if you are a true denizen of this blog, you should understand references to Discworld. The Luggage is not a mimic.
Reminds me of that Tom the Dancing Bug comic which said that anti-gay activists were the new gay stereotype.
There are many things I don't understand. . .Diskworld is one of them.
You misspelled that on purpose.
'raspberry'
Sean Astin gave a surprisingly decent performance as the owner of said Luggage in Colour of Magic.
(Sadly, the same can't be said for Tim Curry. He was a bit flat.)
I seem to be the only person in the world with this opinion, but I'd suggest starting out with Thief of Time.
(and "Tim Curry" was a typo for "Jeremy Irons". Hate it when those letters are right next to each other on the keyboard.)
From the article:
Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Though medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)
That's golden. "I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." The only way it would be better is if he said, "I can't lift MY luggage."
Yeah. He could never have guessed that when he hired him through rentboy.com.
Evil, lying sack of shit. His personal life and his sexual exploits are all fair game now - you don't get to make a career out of making life miserable for queers and maintain your privacy. Forfeit.
@jablair51 #11 you just made me feel very sorry for the phelps family
He's not necessarily working against his own interests. He's affluent and has (or had) political power. The laws he advocates will not prevent him from having sex with men in private.
One man's luggage is another man's junk...
or something like that
Bill Dauphin, OM (@36)
While the evidence to raise it to the status of an accusation isn't on offer, do you really consider that an illegtimate item of concern?
How to express this concern without appearing as hypocrites or resorting to special pleading? Best to avoid the whole mess and ignore his family life.
I swear I'm not concern trolling.
blockquote fail.
Also, I have a hypothesis for why this keeps happening: the ratio of gay people to straight people is more or less constant across all communities, whether they're tolerant of homosexuality or not. In communities that are hostile to homosexuality, they ted to teach kids that being gay is both immoral and a disease you can catch. When people in these communities start experiencing homosexual tendencies, they are convinces that it really is an infectious disease, when in reality, they're just people who were born gay in a gay-hostile environment. Convinced that homosexuality is a legitimate threat, they become the most vehement anti-gay activists, all the while trying to repress their own urges and seeking a "cure." But you can only hold those urges in for so long, which is why they keep getting caught scratching that itch. If it wasn't for the stigma against homosexuality, they could be honest with themselves and be much more well-adjusted.
If he is gay, then it makes him a hypocrite for lobbying for a ban on adoption by gays. When his whole career has been focused on sticking his nose in other people's private lives, I don't think it's unreasonable to examine his.
I may well be missing something important, but isn't it a little strange to adopt a child who's going to be a legal adult in two years?
Nah, Ted Nugent did it. Wait, bad example.
I may well be missing something important, but isn't it a little strange to adopt a child who's going to be a legal adult in two years?
What would *HE* have said about a gay man involved in such an adoption--say, two weeks ago?
"My luggage was too heavy because it contained everything that wouldn't fit in my closet, what with me in there and all. That's why I hired him."
"My personal baggage had gotten too heavy for me to carry around any more. That's why I hired him."
Abstruseoddity (@53):
Admittedly I approach the subject with some trepidation... but when you take note that his anti-gay activisim focuses specifically on the assertion that gays shouldn't adopt, his "family life" becomes entirely relevant to his public positions: If he is, as he certainly appears to be, a closeted and self-loathing gay man, his adoption of anyone underscores his hypocrisy. That he, as a single man, should have adopted an older teenaged boy is peculiar under any circumstances; placed in the context of his having hired a young man (the linked article doesn't mention the "rentboy"'s age, but describes him as a "young man with delicate features") to travel with him, presumably for sexual purposes, I would think this adoption should ring alarm bells for most prudent people.
Alarm is not proof of anything, of course, but Rekers has put his own "family life" squarely at issue by bloviating so hatefully about the family lives of others. IMHO, of course.
I'm shocked! Shocked to learn there's buggery among the wingnuts!
Hey all you gay people, I have a question for ya.
Now, I'm just a simple country heterosexual. Middle-aged, middle class, white, male, perfect conservative demographic.
Now, I've got nothing against you gay folks. I have gay friends, my best man at my wedding was (and still is) gay, voted against Prop.8, give money to the Human Rights Commission. I also vowed not to get married until you gay folks could, and the female woman-wife and I got opposite married just after the CA Supreme Court decision (but before Prop. 8 passed). Heck, I'll even admit that John Barrowman is pretty hot, especially when he chooses to speak in his Scottish accent.
So my question is this: how come whenever simple straight folk like myself are minding our own business and just trying to spread equal rights like adoption and marriage to everyone, some gay feller *shakes an accusatory finger* has to turn out to be some self-loathing anti-gay conservative Republican closet case?!?! All I'm trying to do is campaign for equal rights for everyone, and you gay people just pop up in the form of conservative Christian activists and ruin everything!
I mean, Larry Craig, Roy Ashburn, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Ted Haggard, Ed Schrock, Jim West, Glenn Murphy ... hell! Could you just take a look at your official gay roster there, compare it to a Republican legislator list, and tell me who is NOT gay? I'm sure it'd be a short list.
It's enough to make me want to move to Canada, or maybe Belgium.
Geez, I thought the phrase "one of those scientific types" is pretty clearly sarcastic and doesn't really demand "scare quotes" around scientific to imply pseudo-scientific.
Dan Savage made the "Appalachian trail" parallel as well. YAY!
Not to spoil the joke, but the problem is that there are way too few "simple straight folk trying to spread equal rights to everyone".
Your words; not mine, my lord, king.
I think it was half a dozen revelations of this sort ago that I proposed elevating the likelihood of anti-gay activism being proportional to covert gay activity to having a probability approaching 1. It appears I keep winning. If only I was the betting type.
@SteveM
So, you're saying that because I'm a minority, I should simply expect to be thwarted every time I attempt to have a voice? I knew someone would try to stomp on my rights! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
Sorry, I reacted a bit strongly, there. It's a middle-aged, middle classed white male hetero-thing - you probably wouldn't understand. *longsuffering sigh*
@Carlie
Are you kidding? On this blog?!?! There can only be one starting place for Pharyngulites on the Discworld - "Small Gods"!
Bill Dauphin, OM
Why does his family life become relevant? Policy shouldn't be decided by anecdotes, so even his hypocrisy is immaterial to how we should approach the issue of adoption. I'd rather not make political hay for a position at the expense of a child. I felt the same way when Cheney's daughter was a hot topic. You mentioned your concern for the child, was that feigned? Or is concern just code for an excuse to expose him and his family to ridicule because you find him vile?
Is it unusual amongst adoption advocates? My Partner's mother facilitates foreign adoptions. She had a 15 year old Russian boy staying at her home for a summer. She is single and AFAIK heterosexual, should this be cause for alarm? Or do we have to resort to special pleading to find his actions nefarious?
So you agree with his stated public position. His homosexuality is cause for concern.
I respectfully disagree. Children are not pawns.
@jennyxyzzy: I would suggest going in chronological order, actualy, with the assurance that after "Equal Rites" things will become much, much better.
Personally I believe "Small Gods", "Interesting Times", "Jingo" and "The Truth" ought to be taught in schools.
But, but... horsemen of the Apocalypse!
@Carlie: Wouldn't it be best to start getting acquainted with Lu Tze and Susan before the Horsemen come out to play?
That depends. Does your partner's mother make a living campaigning to prevent heterosexual single women from adopting?
@Abstruseoddity #70
While I agree that children are not pawns, it was Rekers who chose to make children pawns for his anti-gay political agenda. Are you saying he shouldn't be measured by his own standard?
The horsemen were funny as hell, sure, but Thief of Time required too much background about the world. Susan, Death, the Auditors... You have to read Hogfather beforehand, at the very least, and it it's weird enough that it doesn't give someone a good view of the series. I'd go with somewhereingreece's list to begin with. I'd definitely add Night Watch as an eventual must read, but that has a different enough feel that I wouldn't start anyone with it.
@truthspeaker
Would it matter if she did? Would we then find it permissible to subject a child to ridicule because of the actions of a parent?
I felt the same way when Cheney's daughter was a hot topic.
Cheney's daughter? The professional gay when it helps her pocketbook and corporate profits but not when it helps gay folks? The one who avoided going on stage at the RNC with her partner, despite other family members doing so, so as not to piss off the bigots she was helping her family appeal to, to the detriment of gay Americans.
That piece of shit isn't worth any of our concern. She's just as evil as the rest of her family, and all the blah blah blah that came out was pure political cynicism.
Fuck her and her family.
TB Tabby @55:
An amusingly appropriate typo :)
@IslandBrewer
Stop. Think about what you're saying. You are arguing for using children as pawns. Are you comfortable with that? What does that say about you and your position?
@Sgt. Obvious: Thank you for the support. Personally, I had started by reading the first five books translated into greek (back then, the only translated books). I found them nice parodies of fantasy novels and I left it at that.
Then I read "The Fifth Elephant" in english and it just blew me away. I hounded each and every book and those I could not find in the bookstores I got by mail order (yes, I am THAT old).
That meant that I read most of them out of sequence, and I was getting inside jokes in later books by reading an older book some time afterwards. It could get a bit confusing at times and this is why I suggest going about it in the proper chronological order.
@Abstruseoddity
Thanks, but I did think about it. And yes, I'm quite comfortable pointing at the gay man who has adopted a 16 year old boy and loudly ask, "Hey, aren't you making bank off of arguing that people like you shouldn't adopt? Are you admitting that you're guilty of all the horrible social atrocities that you allege result from gay people, like YOURSELF, adopting?"
Yes, I'm quite comfortable doing that. I'd be happy to do that if I had the power and forum.
And as for the poor pawn that he adopted? I believe he's no longer a child, and has refused to comment on Rekers' current situation.
Bill is absolutely right, Abstruseoddity.
I really hope amateur paparazzi hound him wherever he goes from now on. It would also be nice for them to lodge a formal complaint with DHS (or the regional equivalent) about any suspicious activity regarding his "son" they might witness... If by any chance that was going on...
Quite simply because he is trying to legislate what others' family lives should be.
Far from it: if he isn't willing to live up to his own standards, why should anyone listen to him?
Around the time Lords and Ladies came out (mid-1990s), I was suggesting to people they start with Moving Pictures. I know I caught(? infected? addicted?) at least two people. Without ever giving the subject much thought since then, that has remained my recommendation.
Whilst checking my dates, I realised something astonishing (which I “knew” but hadn't “clicked”): Moving Pictures was first published twenty years ago! Maybe I should at least think about updating my recommendation.
Thief of Time is an interesting choice for a first book. My first reaction is Susan and The Auditors (almost sounds like a band name), both of which are exceptionally unusual (even on Discworld) and were introduced in earlier works, might be confusing to the new-to-pTerry, but on second thoughts, I'm not so sure. I'll need to re-read it (yet again) and refresh my memory.
@Abstruseoddity
...do you see anyone here mocking the child? All everyone did was call Reckers on his bullshit.
TSG
And that makes him a hypocrite, but his ideas should be judged on their own merits and nothing else.
They shouldn't, he's a nut. We don't make policy decisions based upon anecdotes (or we shouldn't).
@somewhereingreece
Not in here, no. But the young man (no longer a child, thank you chrstphrgthr) should not be hounded by media or held up as an example of his father's hypocrisy.
Abstruseoddity,
You're missing the point that Rekers claims children adopted by homosexuals are more prone to commit suicide. So Rekers adopting a child would increase the possibility that child would kill himself, at least by Rekers' logic.
As far as Rekers is concerned, I think you all are over-thinking it.
The man has a cash cow as a fundie minister with a mission and he knows nothing's going to stick with the faithful. He can use his "methods" on himself to show how effective they are and further ingratiate himself with his sheeple.
There's no self-loathing or hypocrisy in him... he's just a rip-off artist who could care less what people who don't send him money think. He would not be the first person without scruples to screw people, whether they be xians or LBGTs.
Frankly it would not surprise me in the least if turned out that he and other so-called xian leaders were actually atheists. They're only in it for the money.
As far as Discworld is concerned, my Nine Princes in Amber are ready to taunt you a second time!
The only problem with the Amber books is Zelazny didn't live long enough to complete (or even start) the third series.
@90, Aye, sadly, you're right.
It was the first one I read, mainly because that was the one the library had in when I went looking. It was understandable enough on its own, and made me curious to find out more about the background of everything. It depends on how you like to enter worlds, though - immersion and then spidering out to fill in the backstory or going through in order to build properly on everything.
So you don't think it is germane to the discussion that even he won't follow his own advice? Because it tells me quite a lot about his motivations.
Are you disputing that he adopted a 16 year old boy?
aratina cage #35 wrote:
Come on, Lou Engle! Thou doth protest WAY too much!
Abstruseoddity (@70):
Oh, FFS! Nobody's suggesting exposing this man's family to ridicule, or using his son as a "pawn." The focus here is on Reker's own behavior. That behavior creates, IMHO, a reasonable concern that his adopted son might be (or might become) a victim, but noting that concern is lightyears away from demonizing or pawnifying the poor kid.
Your analogy to the Cheney family is not apt: Dick Cheney didn't have any choice about having a gay daughter. It makes him, IMHO, a heartless bastard (as if we needed yet another reason to think of him that way) that he can accept gayness in his own child but not in other fathers' children, but ultimately it's a situation he's just stuck with: He has his beliefs, and his daughter is what she is, and that they don't match up is simply sad.
Rekers, OTOH, has made a whole fucking career out of specifically preaching to people about what they should and shouldn't do with respect to their own families (he's not just affiliated with the FamilyPatriarchy Research Council; he's one of its founders); when his behavior directly betrays his own holier-than-thou pronouncements to everybody else, it's worth calling him out. Part of his hypocrisy is that he, as (apparently) a gay man, has adopted a child at all, when one of the things he's most famous for is opposing gay adoption.
Note that I'm not the one arguing against gay adoption, nor do I oppose single men (whatever their sexual orientation) adopting (whatever the child's age, gender, or sexual orientation)... but this fellow is behaving in direct contradiction to his own professed moral code, and that fact makes him inherently suspect.
Not to me. But then again, staying at her home for the summer is not the same thing as adoption, and I presume your partner's mother hasn't just gotten home from vacationing with a young prostitute. I didn't say there was anything wrong with a single man adopting a teenager; I just said it was uncommon.¹ Being an inherently uncommon event, it's relatively unlikely to be purely coincidental to other facts in Reker's life.
Not at all. I don't think he's sketchy because he's gay; I think he's sketchy because he's fucking sketchy! More specifically, we're only talking about him in the first place today because he's been outed as being sexual with a young man in a way that's illicit according to both the law (i.e., the rent part of rentboy) and to his own self-professed moral standards (i.e., the boy part).
I can see only two possibilities: If he truly believes all the hateful crap he says about gay people and gay adoption, and yet can't deny his own indwelling gayness, he must despise himself, and think of himself as a pervert. OTOH, perhaps he's perfectly comfortable with his own sexuality, and his public anti-gay activism is all just a self-serving scam, in which case it's hard to think of him as anything other than cynical and amoral.
Either way, putting a child in his care strikes me as a bad risk: If he already thinks of himself as a pervert, what's to stop him from acting like one? OTOH, if he's a self-serving, amoral con-man, what's to stop him from doing whatever in the hell he thinks he can get away with?
I absolutely agree with you that children aren't pawns; while I desperately hope it's not so, I fear Mr. Rekers may disagree with us in his dealings with his own adopted son. I'm not quite sure I understand how worrying about that possibility makes me the villain of the piece.
¹ On a hurried google search, I couldn't find clear statistics on adoptions by single men. The largest estimate I found for single-parent adoptions was 8 to 34 percent (a range so large as to suggest the number is little better than a guess), and that source asserted that "most" of those were by single women. It's a pure SWAG, but I'd be surprised if any more than 10 percent of adoptions were by single men, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the real number were far smaller than that.
re 68:
Okay, I'm losing track of whether we are joking around or not anymore. I don't know how you can interpret what I said as meaning that you should expect to have your voice thwarted. I was just saying that it seems that advocating equal rights for everyone has become quite the minority position (especially among white conservatives).
I am a "middle-aged, middle classed white male hetero-" and I still have no idea what this "thing" is you're talking about. (other than maybe I am just not getting the humor anymore, it has gotten too abstract for my middle-aged brain)
Oh, sorry mine @95 lagged so far behind the conversation it was about; I was pecking away during breaks at work.
Your analogy to the Cheney family is not apt: Dick Cheney didn't have any choice about having a gay daughter. It makes him, IMHO, a heartless bastard (as if we needed yet another reason to think of him that way) that he can accept gayness in his own child but not in other fathers' children, but ultimately it's a situation he's just stuck with: He has his beliefs, and his daughter is what she is, and that they don't match up is simply sad.
The Cheney analogy fails on other levels.
Mary was a public lesbian. She had worked for Coors as a liaison to LGBT communities. (In other words, she was hired to shill for shit beer to a consumer market that had boycotted the company over the rabid homohatred of its founding family.) She wasn't some kind of minor child hidden away. She was out in public and for pay.
Then, she turned her back on everyone. But, again, let's be honest. LGBT folks weren't an actual constituency for Mary Cheney, they were a market of suckers. Just like we were supposed to be for her wretched book (which we overwhelmingly avoided buying).
The comparison fails on every level.
QFT
SteveM @96
He's joking.
Yes, very much so.
Nobody here has advocated subjecting any children, or even Reker's adopted son who is now twenty years old, to ridicule.
Is this kind of thing even remotely surprising anymore? It's almost not funny for me anymore. Almost.
Regardless of anything else about his adopting a child, if his stance against letting gays adopt has been written anywhere as "a child needs a mother and a father," yes, he is a hypocrite on that count and it is relevant.
@otrame #99
No, I'm quite serious - John Barrowman is hot.
@SteveM #96
[humorless wetblanket]Yes, otrame is correct. The self-identification with an obviously priviledged demographic juxtaposed to a righteously indignant outcry of oppression as a minority was meant to solicit a humorous reaction. I hereby concede my failure.[/humorless wetblanket]
Absurdity is just ticked because one of his fellow christofascist bigots just got shown to be a liar, a bigot, and a nutcase. How much self hate, hypocrisy, and lack of integrity do you need to be an anti-gay crusader while renting boys for your vacation?
We all know that concern trolls aren't really concerned about whatever their red herring is. In this case children. He just doesn't have the courage or honesty to defend a hate mongering, lying fundie christian. Except to his fellow religious crackpots.
So concern troll. What business is it of Reker's who people sleep with or whether they adopt children? When Rekers is poking his nose and whatever else into other people's lives, the fundies think that is just great, god's will and all that. When people look at his wreck of a life, all the sudden it is a big deal. You fundie trolls are all hypocrits.
As well as being hypocrites.
Sorry, the misspelling of hypocrite is one of my pet peeves.
It is entirely possible that he believes his own lies, and thinks he's "cured". Almost without fail, these anti-gay "cure" people almost always explicitly say that they are heterosexual men who "struggled with homosexual emotions". You shouldn't discount how powerful this kind of self-delusion can be. If he did employ that bag boy for sex, then he will simply claim that he temporarily relapsed in a moment of weakness (much like many addicts will claim), and is redoubling his efforts.
I really need to know - is lifting the luggage something that progressive heterosexual women can do, or is it an extra-special yumminess for closeted gay fundies only? I mean, it wouldn't be fair for them to have some special magical technique all to themselves.
Has anyone yet tried to blame this on the fool's wife, like they did with Ted Haggard? (Dan Savage suggested that if only she'd had some silicone toys and a exercise ball would have prevented his luggage lifting excursions.)
I await detailed instructions from those in the know.
"they are heterosexual men who 'struggled with homosexual emotions'. "
Which is why you always want to have a safe word.
Re IslandBrewer:
Sorry to be a wetblanket, the problem is that you were not absurd enough. That is, we are well aware that there are way too many of that privileged class bleating their indignant outcries of oppression that it falls under Poe's Law. The parody is indistinguishible from the sincere. Like with the gay marriage issue. In all sincerity the white hetero majority will say "the gays have an equal right to marriage already, a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else". I think there was a time, (and hopefully will be again) when this statement would have been considered a joke, but these people mean it and see no absurdity in it at all.
Regardless, I think I normally have a better sense of humor, must just be a bad day or something. (Rush's comments about the oil slick just really pissed me off I guess).
SteveM,
Please, don't give it another thought. I apologize for my lack of sufficient absurdity. I'll try to be even more ridiculous and illogical in the future.
And yeah, I'm well versed in the "special rights!" claims of the anti-gay cabal, which, amusingly, appears to be staffed disproportionately with gay people. See, THAT'S what I find funny.
You know, in a sad and tragic way.
On another note, I think it's best just to ignore Mr. Limbaugh as a raving loon, as if he were John Davison.
MATTIR (@107):
Rekers has a wife? I didn't see any mention of her in either the wiki page or the linked article, and given that wives, if they exist, are usually mentioned in discussions of men's prostitution scandals, I was taking him to be single.
If he's got a wife, and is at least pretending to be part of a straight couple, that would make the business of adopting a (then) 16 yo boy marginally less sketchy... but it doesn't mean anything else about this (you should pardon the expression) affair smells any better.
MAJeff (@98):
Yah, I knew the whole Cheney saga was more complex than my passing take; I just didn't want to get sidetracked from my main point. The Oddity's mention of the Cheneys was, IMHO, a bit of a red herring to begin with.
MAJeff (@98):
Yah, I knew the whole Cheney saga was more complex than my passing take; I just didn't want to get sidetracked from my main point. The Oddity's mention of the Cheneys was, IMHO, a bit of a red herring to begin with.
I'll let myself get sidetracked.
But, I also wanted to confront the bullshit. Mary Cheney is a piece of shit. Her--and her family's--"oh woe is us" bullshit after the Kerry debate was of a piece with their entire approach to the issue. Mary was a public lesbian, but in 2000 her mother denied she was even gay in a national interview. Mary willingly aided her party in harming gay folks all over the country. The narrative our concern troll is putting forth may be one favored by the DC press corps and anti-gay right wingers, but the stunt they pulled--not Kerry's statement--was pure cynicism.
The Cheneys are a group of people who are utterly worthless.
Oh, rent boy!
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/meet-geo-male-prostitute-hired-by-…
...but, his rentboy profile doesn't mention that he will "lift your luggage":
Or are 28" waist size, 8x6" UNCUT, VERSATILE, NICE ASS maybe the descriptions of a specific kind of luggage he will lift for you?
Island Brewer:
Ha! Full. Of. Win.
"Some heterosexual men sexualize violence including the medically dangerous practice of rape followed by murder, which means forcible sexual contact of unwilling female victims followed by strangulation or bludgeoning them to death."
They are occasionally girl children. The Green River killer isn't too sure how many women he killed, but 48 is a common estimate.
George Allen Rekers is a total loser as a human being. I like the way he tries to demonize a whole group by mentioning the extremes. That works both ways. In fact, he could be a poster boy for the hypocrisy and lies of the homophobic fundie death cultists himself.
raven you forgot murder then necrophilia is also medically dangerous as well although not nearly as satisfying
Regardless of how much money he makes or how much notoriety he has, he is still a self-loather. Could you lie to the outside world day-in and day-out and still respect yourself the next morning?
Maybe "self-interest" was the wrong word. But my mind is still boggled* by ass-clowns like Rekers.
*Or bottled.
I see MAJeff beat me to it.
YOWZA! Reekers knows how to pick 'em. Yum!
For the spanish speakers: "Cargar las petacas".
Meh, not really loving the hair.
And what the hell is up with the shaved armpits?! (At least Dan Savage seems a little squicked out by it, too...)
MAJeff (@112):
No argument from me on that score, to be sure!
I saw this quote earlier on in the comments and laughed a little:
And so do some heterosexual people. Not my thing, but they can do it if they want. I guess he most likely has no problems with anal sex after seeing this story. I am pretty sure that can get you pretty close to those "highly infectious wastes".
@Gyeong Hwa Pak
Clicking that link was really unfortunate. It reminds me way too much of David Cassidy and elementary school. EEEEEEW! (I blame you for the temptation, and as we all know, causing temptation in others leads to natural disasters. I hope you'll assume responsibility should my tree fall on my house or something.)
No. You know for a fact that I'm the cause of the next earth quake in a city sitting on a geologically active location. lol
Bah. To each their own. I've grown to like it.
The hair on the right is awful, though, yes.
""and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him.""
So his argument is that he isn't gay just limp wristed?
"How can someone actively hate themselves so much that they actually crusade against their own self interests?"
I think the 'oodles' of cash that come with the gig, is more of the concern than the hate. After all, you can presumably get the sex secret on the side while reaping in benefits
The guy is clearly a piece of shit. He deserves whatever scorn is heaped upon him.
Pardon me for appearing to be a concern troll.
This Family Research Council member/Dobson buddy-buddy/gay hater extraordinaire just keeps on giving. He responded to Joe.My.God on Facebook with,
Bwahahahaha! How many euphemisms for sex does this guy have?
His own hate-group, the Family Research Council, has already erased him from their history pages even though he founded the fucking thing. Like the other bigots who started the Family Research Council, George Rekers is a Grade-A bigot. He had the gall to testify in a Florida court that children should be forcibly removed from gay couples even after living with them for 10 years, and he was paid $87,000 for such a fascist statement by the state itself! He's so out of his mind crazy that he compared gay couples with terrorists and parents who could only speak Thai (Oh No!) to justify nabbing children out of homes with gay parents. What is wrong with people to throw money at such loons?
The kid only weighs 130 lbs/60 kg. Even though he looks like he's in good shape, how much luggage could he lift at any one time? If moving heavy weights was Rekers' reason for renting a boy, I'd think he'd get someone a bit bigger.