Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

NARTH Responds To Rekers Controversy

Jim Burroway

May 6th, 2010

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality just sent this statement out moments ago:


The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made,and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. 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 atonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

Translation: Pay no attention to that man hiding behind the curtain. Or the closet door, as the case may be.



May 6th, 2010 | LINK

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.

Hahahaha.. yes.. you wish it were so, but unfortunately the reality of Rekers’ behavior speaks much more loudly than your cherry picked “scientific data.”

May 6th, 2010 | LINK

NARTH’s statement is reasonable, intelligent, and humane – unlike the predictably vicious commentary the incident involving Rekers has received here.

The “NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made” part indicates that they are aware that Rekers may well be guilty as charged, so the juvenile “Pay no attention to that man hiding behind the curtain” of Burroway’s post is uncalled for.

Maurice Lacunza
May 6th, 2010 | LINK

To Quo:
Burroway’s comment isn’t intended to build a nurturing and caring relationship with NARTH.

His comment is to point out the obvious: the work and science of NARTH is faulty. Not even their leaders can become straight! The comment is intended to connect the dots. You cannot change a persons’ sexual orientation. Don’t let the whitewash of NARTH’s statement guide you to a place of acceptance. NARTH is bad science; period!

NARTH could have said, Gee, maybe what we do around here doesn’t really work. Maybe we should look hard at ourselves when our top leaders turn out to be gay. NARTH has no such self reflection. Instead they reiterate the same junk science; albeit it was polite.

To Jim: Good work BTB on all the articles. Thank you in case no one else does.

May 7th, 2010 | LINK

Quo, could you please clarify whether you think Rekers is innocent? I realize you’re not exactly defending him, but the fact that you’re attacking his critics suggests that you’re trying to distract people from the real issue.

As for the supposedly “vicious commentary the incident involving Rekers has received here”, does the fact that Rekers is being criticized somehow exonerate him?

May 7th, 2010 | LINK


Rekers looks very probably guilty as charged. I’m simply noting that NARTH is responding to the matter in a sensitive and genuinely humane way, while of course Rekers’s gay critics aren’t.

May 7th, 2010 | LINK


NARTH may be responding to Rekers in a “sensitive and genuinely humane way” but their claim to be “a professional scientific organization” is blatantly dishonest.

As for your blanket assertion about “Rekers’s gay critics”, not all of his critics are gay and not all are “vicious” as you claim. I think it’s fair to point out that Rekers was paid with Florida taxpayer funds for “expert testimony”, even though the court, with good reason, did not recognize him as an expert. Furthermore I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out that, in spite of his lack of expertise, he kept the money and apparently used it to hire a male prostitute whom he took on a trip to Europe.

These are facts. Perhaps you phrased your original statement poorly, but I hope you don’t think that anyone who states the facts is a vicious gay critic.

May 7th, 2010 | LINK

Rekers has profited greatly from both his personal hypocrisy of promoting the mythical gay cure that never worked on him, and generally viciously attacking gay people and supporting people who viciously attack gay people.

He deserves all “vicious commentary” directed at him. As does Ted Haggard. As does NARTH in general.

When you put economics above honesty, fraud above integrity, and discrimination, bigotry, and endless militant attacks on a minority’s freedoms above acceptance and love, you do not get a free pass.

Priya Lynn
May 7th, 2010 | LINK

The “vicious” commentary directed at Rekers is of no significance in comparison to the vicious attacks Rekers made on the lives and loves of gay people. Leave it to Quo to wail about the unimportant and to ignore a tragedy.

John in the Bay Area
May 7th, 2010 | LINK

I thought that we were trying to encourage Quo to spend less time online arguing with gay people who are comfortable with who they are, so that he might instead spend his time getting the help he clearly needs. Nothing is more effective in dealing with him then treating his posts as if they don’t exist.

Priya Lynn
May 7th, 2010 | LINK

I never agreed to that.

Jason D
May 7th, 2010 | LINK

John, that’s what I’ve been doing and at the very least it’s helped me!

Maurice Lacunza
May 7th, 2010 | LINK

My dear students and friends, the Quo problem is solved with basic Behavioralism 101. If you give it attention, negative or positive, it tends to strengthen the behavior.

Rewards tend to increase behavior and consequences tend to decrease behavior.
But, If you want to extinguish behavior, you give it NO ATTENTION at all.

So John and Jason have it correctly.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.