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:

NARTH RESPONDS TO THE RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF DR. GEORGE REKERS

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.

Burr

May 6th, 2010

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.”

Quo

May 6th, 2010

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

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.

Allen

May 7th, 2010

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?

Quo

May 7th, 2010

Allen,

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.

Allen

May 7th, 2010

Quo,

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.

Tommy

May 7th, 2010

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

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

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

I never agreed to that.

Jason D

May 7th, 2010

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

Maurice Lacunza

May 7th, 2010

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)
(Required, never shared)

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

 

Latest Posts

Federal Judge Blocks UNC From Enforcing North Carolina's "Bathroom Bill"

Georgia Pastor Who Praised Orlando Shooting Arrested for Child Molestation

Maine's Governor Is the Epitome Of What's Wrong In The Republican Party

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1970: Protesters March, then Riot in Greenwich Village over Police Harassment

Born On This Day, 1844: Edward Carpenter

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1951: California Gay Bars Given Very Brief Reprieve

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.