How many Homophobes are closeted Homosexuals?

Just like so many strongly 'pro-family' ministers and politicians who are eventually found to be having lurid affairs- how many of those most stridently anti-homosexual- and part of the anti-gay propaganda agenda- are gays who are in denial?

Take the case of George Rekers- Family Research Council founder, and NARTH spokesman(former)

In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there.

And what did we find out about Mr. Rekers?

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch (*)(*)(*)(*) (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

George Alan RekersLondon (England)Family Research CouncilLGBT IssuesSexuality
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." (Medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-0...r-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/

In subsequent interviews, Roman said Rekers had paid him to provide nude massages daily:[11][61] "'Jo-vanni' in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching."[62] He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual: "It's a situation," Roman said, "where he's going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual." According to the New Times, Roman "made it clear they met through Rentboy.com",[9] and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage;[61] The Times reported that Rekers "hired a companion from a website called Rentboy.com that offers clients a wide range of choices, from 'rentboy' and 'sugar daddy' to 'masseur'."[55] On the May 6, 2010 episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart pointed out that Roman is looking on in the photograph, while Rekers is seen handling his own luggage.[63][64]

Of course eventually Rekers was disowned by NARTH.

But how many others are there like Rekers who push anti-gay propaganda but have a boy toy on the side?

Remember the case of Mark Foley? Conservative anti-homosexual Republican- but turned out to be really interested in male pages?

Larry Craig?

Perhaps J. Edgar Hoover.

How many of those who are most vehemently anti-homosexual are doing so while getting a little something something on the side?

And what drives that kind of self loathing?

 

Thanks Jeffy for sharing with us a web site which you frequent. I never heard of rentboy and was surprised to see an example of what you see at homosexual parades right on the start page.

Mod edit,,flounder

 

It really gets down to how PASSIONATE you see the Homophobes are in their hatred of gays. I mean lots of loathsome, insulting posts...."guilt by association" crime stories....lots of vivid imagery of oral or anal sex and "This is what those perverts love"....

really dedicating themselves to strong, INTENSE hatred of gays.....which reveals their own guilt and seff-hatred.

Also they usually are not or have not been in any kind of long-term relationship with a woman...despite the male homophobes claim to being hetero.

 

most extreme homophobes are of course, gay.

 

Hyperbole aside.
I fail to see how not conding a behavior translates into hatred. I don't condone cigarette smoking either, but I don't hate smokers.

I don't condone homosexual behavior. I'm not going to celebrate it as part of some sort of parade of perversion, but I don't hate the homosexual.

There are numerous websites dedicated to married people looking for other married people, outside of their spouses by the way. I certainly do not condone extramarital affairs either.

Yes, we paleo-conservative dinosaurs were raised with morals, too bad the decline of the traditional family between a married man and woman raising a child/children is inexorably linked to a loosening of societal mores.

 

Are you saying that we homosexuals do not have morals? Are you serious? See- right there is where you're wrong. And that's why you get labeled as you do. You should not be surprised when you insult people and they insult right back.

 

Most extreme homophobes don't simply condemn non-vaginal sex within marriage, they hate and dispise homosexuals.

But for some reason don't care about straight people engaging in oral and anal sex.

 

Engaging in the behavior is immoral, yes. You're looking for me to make a blanket statement, that gays are evil which is not the case. We're all sinners at some point, I have no doubt I have sinned, and continue to sin..and have behaved immorally...what I don't do is celebrate this as an exercise in cultural diversity.

The only statement I'm making is that yes, in my view engaging in same sex, sexual relations...is immoral.
Regardless of the context, regardless of attempts to legitimize it by equating it to a man and woman bound in holy matrimony. It most certainly is not equivalent in my view.

 

Most, maybe, I really can't tell. The most extremely homophobic gay hating guy I ever met was an ex-convict. He was married and very promiscuous with frequent (heterosexual) extramarital affairs or encounters.

Compensating maybe?

My guess though is that in the close confines of a prison various things happened to create the hatred within him.

On the other hand these guys who could go about their lives really unaffected by homosexuality who choose instead to make fighting it their life's work...

Yea I think your right.

 

The reason extreme homophobes are soo angry, is because they hate the homosexuality within themselves, and they take it out on other gays.

 

I think the problem is that you are viewing an ingrained and unchanging innate trait in a person as immoral.

Just as it is innate and ingrained in you to be heterosexual (yet not view heterosexuality as perverse in any way shape or form), yet you view someone else's innate and ingrained trait as perverse simply because it is different from your own.

That is where the problem lies. You view someone else's innate characteristic as immoral, perverse and wrong, yet it is a trait that many believe they were born with and cannot ever change about themselves. This is why so many frustrated homosexual teens turn to suicide in the end, because they are not able to change themselves at their families behest, because no matter what they do, whether it be a chemical imbalance in the mind or something we are born with, we cannot change who we are sexually attracted to any more than we can change the skin color we were born with. And even then one can bleach their skin and tan to the extreme, but how does one change who they feel attracted to? And how can we expect people to have to change this about themselves? How does it help them to call them immoral, perverse, deviants and pedophiles? Is that meant to motivate them to somehow change?

With people who choose to have extramarital affairs, we know this is in fact a choice, but with people who feel physical and sexual attraction for certain people of a certain sex, we do not yet know if this is even a choice. If we find out that our sexual attractions are something we are born with in the end then you will be condemning people for something that they had no choice over.

 

That's your view, which is very insulting and demeaning to people like me. Apply it to yourself if you like, but keep that view away from laws affecting others and we'll get along fine. I did not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex. Calling that immoral is just ridiculous from where I sit.

 

Miami News Times? I believe this is the first time I have ever gone there- there are dozens of news articles about the homophobe and his vacation boy toy- this was the first one I clicked open. Glad you enjoyed reading about the wierd cases of anti-gay activists who are hiring boy toys.

Perhaps you know of more stories of homophobes who are actually gay that you can share?

I had never heard of rentboy before either- and haven't gone to their website- you are more gay curious than I am apparently.

Now, sorry to disappoint you.

Have you used the service?

Or any other service to hire men for sexual services?

I am sure if you do your usual deep research you can find out whether you need to be concerned about HIV or not.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't assume that someone who is uncomfortable with homosexuals or just doesn't agree with gay marriage 'hates homosexuals'- but I do believe that many of those who are most vehemantly opposed to homosexuals do hate them.

 

All Islamic schools of thought consider gay acts to be unlawful. There is a difference in terms of penalty: The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted. The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted.


"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165

Both references relate to gay sexual activities; lesbian practices are not mentioned in the Qur'an.

What is the consensus of the gay community towards Islam?


.

 

Can I just make the joke we're all thinking about by the way?

He hired the boy to "lift his luggage", and in his own words,

http://gawker.com/5533157/rentboy-hiring-homophobe-george-rekers-urges-hired-escort-to-keep-quiet

xD lmfao!!!

 

We don't care for religion much at all. Islam is one of the worst. What's your point? Are you trying to say that gays are Muslims or something? This is a pretty weird post.

 

LOL.....

 

I'm not gay, but as a woman Islam is terrifying to me. But at least they do not kill girls and women without reason (although when they do kill girls and women it is for very stupid reasons like not having an intact hymen or for being raped) while they kill gay people just for being gay. I think Islam would be more terrifying for gay people just for that reason.

 

The OP is a direct attack on Christianity, however Islam seems to get a free pass.

if there is any faction with an unnatural hatred of something, it is the gay activists hatred towards Christians...the
hypocrisy is astounding.

A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is to treat others, as you would like to be treated. If the gay activist desires to be treated with tolerance, perhaps they should show tolerance for those (religious or not) who do not view homosexual behavior positively.

Your view is that I have no right to practice a faith or to have moral views...or to vote along these guidelines.

That is the epitome of intolerance.

You get no respect, because you give none.

Simple as that.

 

You say Islam gets a free pass but the fact remains that it is not Islam in the US that is the majority religion nor the one that is actively trying to oppress gay people just for being gay and calling them nasty names like immoral, deviants, and pedophiles here. Maybe in places like Iran sure, and then when homosexuals fight against Islam specifically in Iran will you call them out for not targeting Christians too even though the vast majority of Iran is Muslim??? It is Christian organizations by and far who do this in the US, so they are targeted for their hypocrisy and cruelty towards others.

If the anti-racists desire to be treated with tolerance perhaps they should show tolerance to the racists.

Tolerate those who are intolerant? Does that really make any sense to you?

 

I don't show tolerance for those who wish to see me treated differently under the law. Sorry, not gonna happen pal.

You're hardly a shining example of the Golden Rule. Oh but wait, that's just for other people, right?

 

Ummm really- that is what you read the OP to be?

My OP was talking about 'family values' activists who actively are anti-gay and turn out to be gay in private.

The prime example happened to be a minister, but if he was a prominent anti-homosexual Muslim or atheist, I would have as happily have pointed him out.

While I think much of the Muslim world is indeed both anti-gay and also misogynistic, here in the U.S. the anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council happen to call themselves Christian oriented- but if I heard of a Muslim organization here in the U.S. with similar orientation, I would be glad to point out them out also.

 

Ignorant Christianaphobes...
I pity of all of you bigots...

Did you know that many are a born with an innate desire to seek God and the spiritual...it isn't their fault they follow a religion. Perhaps when you Christianaphobes get out of the Dark Ages you could celebrate the cultural diversity of Christiandom...until then...you're just ignorant bigots.

Not so nice is it?
When the shoe is on the other foot.

As I say, when no quarter is given, don't expect any in return.

 

I ask again herk, what will you do if it comes to it that being gay is an inherent trait some people are born with? Will you continue to condemn and call them immoral for having no control over how they were born as? Would you condemn someone for being born a boy or a girl, for being born black or white, for being born straight or gay?

Why is it only ok to condemn them when you think it is a choice? And how does calling them immoral help anyone anyways? What is the purpose of calling someone's behavior immoral?

 

I will never show tolerance to your choice to engage in that sort of behavior and when obliged will vote against any proposition which condones it, and vote for any candidate who shares my views of same.

There's not much you can do about that, anymore than I can do to have you recognize the behavioral choices as immoral.

This is the situation report.
There is no need to discuss further.
Thought cannot be legislated.

have a great day.