Tweet of the Day

Is Every Right-Wing, Anti-Gay Christian Bigot Sucking Off Rent Boys? (spoilers: yes)less than a minute ago via web


31 thoughts on “Tweet of the Day”

  1. Isn’t it just f*cking ironic how those anti-gay bigots are getting laid by hot boys more than me?! *sigh* bastard irony gods

    And i wonder how hypocrites like that can stomach the lies they tell everyday :/ what monsters those people are… i hope his wife files a divorce and takes half his money away, and the media should degrade this guy more! Expose the hypocrisy of these bigots!

      1. yeah well i dont have my own church that gives me donations to buy rent bois now do i? :P

  2. It does not surprise me at all. People like that think if you can pull one over on the others, good for you… kind of the extension of “Im not perfect, just forgiven” .
    People like Rush Limbaugh say such virulent things about people and when they fall into one such situation, it is totally different. Schmucks… all of them.
    Gah. It makes me ill.

  3. I bet that boi was paid well and had all the nice little perks that went with it – the funniest part of it was that payment came from church funds … LOL.

    There exist some very wealthy religious leaders, LOL.

  4. What really annoys me is the fact that this B…..d has probably ruined a lot of young peoples lifes by his anti gay preaching. Throw him to the press and let the lions sink their pens in.

  5. Either his facebook has been hacked or people are having fun
    and made a fake still fun to read though.

  6. It’s OK Minister Rekers, the LORD will forgive you!
    You can probably lay most of the blame on those lads (and their ads) for tempting you in the first place.

    But drop the Gladstone line (Gladstone, when Prime Minister of England used to unwind at night by seeking out street girls to call them to Jesus – Well, that was Gladstone’s story whenever anyone spotted him…). But the Gladstone line won’t work for you. Too much evidence against your story – and then there’s your moustache, which nobody will believe.

    Your line has to be Repentance. Say you were possessed by the Devil of Desire. Then grovel – grovel right down low. And then think up a penitence. You could do a bar crawl around all the gay bars of Miami and ask the guys to let you swallow their sacrament. You’d enjoy that. When you’ve finished the Church will give you your job back and you can return to your old gay-bashing ways. You could sell a DVD version of your sermons – with illustrations.

    Or you could learn to carry your own luggage like an honest man – all the way down to Hell.

  7. Jesus Forgives so Christians can do all the sins in the world they want to do and take no responsibility.

    I got Jesus you have to forgive me. nah nah nah nah


  8. Just been doing a crossword with mum and she thought Hades was in spain. Sorry totally not with this post but it was a blair witch moment and i had to put it somewhere.

    1. Well that’s odd, it works here fine. Are you able to view the Huffington Post in the UK? Let me see if these work.

      The Colbert ReportMon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Alpha Dog of the Week – George Rekershttp://www.colbertnation.comColbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

      Okay if you click on the “Alpha Dog of the Week” link it takes you to the video but you have to watch a commercial. These links work here to so if it doesn’t for you, I don’t know what is wrong.

    1. I’m sorry it won’t work, it is really funny. I wonder if it’s just a UK thing or does the link only work in the USA?

  9. This is an unfortunate situation, but it is not a matter of hypocrisy. The man may have homosexual interests but he is not “gay” and there is nothing inherently hypocritical about an anti-gay homosexual. A man may logically wish to have sex with men/boys but at the same time not consider himself to be “gay,” which has an altogether different cultural consruct. “Homeosexual” refers to behavior, whereas “gay” refers to identity. Only in reltatively modern times have some homosexual men, and society at large, decided to convert homosexual behavior into a fundamental identity (and that is one that is essentially urban, liberal, and North American/European). There are many homosexual men who do not consider themselves gay, because they do not view their homosexual interests or conduct as constituting part of their underlying identity, and they feel little in common with the “gay community” of North American and European cities (and the liberal lifestyle there). Moreover, one can be homosexual and also be opposed to same-sex marriage, and even think that homosexuality is to be discouraged.

    In short, there is nothing hypocritical about a man who engages in homosexual sex and is anti-gay. That notwithstanding, hypocrisy is not always undesireable, which will be apparent to anyone who thinks about the matter for a while.

  10. Dear Justin,
    I would like to respond to your interesting comment (no 24 as I write).
    I appreciate the distinction you draw between ‘homosexual behaviour’ and ‘gay identity’. A boy or man might be attracted to other boys/men and yet find the ‘gay identity’ scenario off-putting. In my case, when I was a teenage boy I made no secret of my being attracted to other boys – so I suppose I was technically ‘out’. But when I turned 18/19 I had very little sympathy with the adult gay movement. Partly because I was never attracted to adult men, but mostly because I found the compulsion to DEFINE yourself by your sexuality absurd. I also just didn’t like the company of effeminate, self-pitying, hysterical fags (but that is maybe a matter of taste and a reflection on my local gay community at the time).
    However, in the case of Baptist Minister Rekers you have a man who is evidently homosexually inclined and conceals it. This is maybe not hypocritical, but it is not honest. But in addition, this Baptist Minister Rekers poses as someone who protects family values and kids against the ‘threats’ of the gay community. In fact, he makes his career out of it. What justification does he have for this pursuit of gays unless it is his conviction that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong? This, surely, makes him a hypocrite. He does not practise what he (literally) preaches.
    Nor is it simply the case that he is campaigning against same-sex marriage. You might be homosexually inclined and nevertheless have reservations against same-sex marriage. However, Rekers (see his extraordinary defence on FaceBook…) has explicitly stated that it is his Christian Ministry to dissuade his rentboys from their homosexual behaviour. And one sees how he goes about it.
    If this is not hypocrisy, then I am misunderstanding the word.

  11. Namaste, Sion

    To the extent that Rekers discourages rent boys and others to refrain from homosexual behavior, I suppose he is a hypocrite. Nevertheless, hypocrisy is not in and of itself necessarily undesireable, from a philosophical point of view. Put aside the homosexual context for a moment, and consdier the matter more generally. If there is a perceived negative personality trait “X” (it could be anything from excessive drinking, smoking, gambling, domestic violence, etc.), and it is desireable that people refrain from such behavior, then it is beneficial to have an influential person to encourage others to refrain from X even if he himself is unable (or unwilling) to do so. From a utiltiarian point of view then, a person’s hypocrisy may have the result of reducing the overall occurrence of X, because others are discouraged from it. To put it more concretely, if the president was a wife-beater, would you prefer that he openly bragged about it (and was honest) or that he concealed it and encouraged people to refrain from domestic violence? The former scenario would not reduce the total societal harm, whereas the latter would.

    Now in the present case with Rekers, I would say that refraining from homosexual conduct is not something that people should be discouraged from doing. He should, indeed, be criticized for advocating that view. But that is distinct from criticizing him for being a hypocrite, because being a hypocrite is not necessarily a bad thing, whereas holding an undesireable opinion is.

    As for the issue of whether he is honest about his sexuality, that raises the question of whether people have a duty to be honest about their sexuality, and to whom that duty is owed. That is a matter that many gay men spend their entire lives struggling with.

    I was interested to hear about your own experience growing up. Was it in India (your icon suggests you are Indian)? India of course has its own cultural traditions and approach to sexuality which is quite different than the west, which was given a western veneer with British colonialism (thus giving it the most sexually oppressed version of western sexuality possible).

  12. Dear Justin,

    The ‘icon’ you spotted reveals the source of an email, not the nationality or background of the sender. I live most of the year in India.

    I think the example you give to defend hypocrisy is misleading. It would not be a virtue for the president to beat his wife and brag about it. But it does not follow that it is a virtue if he beats his wife and keeps it hidden.

    The second stage of your argument reminds me of Mr Micawber lecturing others on the dangers of excessive spending and heroically holding himself up as an example to be avoided. Society is not benefited by this, it is merely entertained.

    I think you are generally confusing actions and outcomes. There might be all manner of good outcomes in consequence of my telling lies under certain conditions. This does not make lying a virtue. It simply demonstrates that it is sometimes – in the short term – convenient.

    In the case of Mr Rekers preaching against homosexuality it is possible that he is sufficiently deluded to believe that his preaching might be beneficial – ie it would save someone from committing sins that he himself cannot refrain from (rather like Mr Micawber). But surely his own spiritual authority would caution him against this: take a look at Matthew 7:5 –
    Will you say to your
    brother, Let me pull the
    speck out of your eye; and,
    behold, a beam is in your
    own eye?

    But maybe Minister Rekers never read this passage, or Luke 6:42.

    As for your question: Does a man have a duty to be honest about his sexuality? I don’t see that sexuality is attached to a particular context of duty. It is surely more useful to consider the consequences of honesty or dishonesty in any realm. We frequently make the mistake of considering a lie in isolation. But a lie never exists in isolation. A lie implies an infinite series of potential lies and a limitless readiness to exclude others from the truth.

    The unfortunate truth is that Minister Rekers is a pathetic figure – a man who would counsel and teach others how to live, but who is unable to face the most fundamental truths about his own nature. It would be kinder to encourage him to face this than to obscure his wretchedness with knots of sophistry.

  13. Sion,

    I did not say that hypocrisy was a virtue; I merely said that it could be beneficial to society. Many things that are not virtuous are beneficial to society. For example, it is beneficial for a society to have ruthless, blood-thirsty men who are available to perform dirty work for the state. That does not make such men virtuous, it merely makes them beneficial – or to use your word – convenient – to the welfare of the state. States are not founded on virtue; they are founded on power. Virtue is a property of individuals, not of states, and it is by pursuing virtue (the route to happiness according to Aristolte) man often finds himself in (tragic) conflict with the demands of the state and society. But now we are perhaps getting rather far afield.

    As for the biblical quotation, I have no idea what particular portions of scripture Reekers finds compelling. I do know that a great many people have been able to find authority for a great many positions in the bible. Indeed, the bible even seems to condone deception at times; for example, the concealment of the birth of Moses, in order to prevent him being killed by Pharoah, is painted as a positive act.

  14. Well, let’s just hope that Minister Rekkers enjoyed his 10-day European trip with his rent-boy and that he has no regrets (apart from having to face malicious and unfounded accusations of hypocrisy).

    The trip surely benefited society, by giving pleasure to himself and employment to others, and a great story for the media on his return.

Leave a Reply