{"id":4073,"date":"2010-05-06T21:56:15","date_gmt":"2010-05-07T01:56:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4073"},"modified":"2010-05-06T21:56:15","modified_gmt":"2010-05-07T01:56:15","slug":"rekers-think","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/05\/06\/rekers-think\/","title":{"rendered":"rekers-think…"},"content":{"rendered":"
Personally, I’ve always been of the opinion that decent parenting [or foster\/adoptive parenting] rests on intangibles: Is the child wanted? Does the parent understand that parents are for children, not the other way around? Does the parent focus on optimal development for the child they have rather than try to shape the child to their own template? Does the parent have the basic aptitude to understand the child’s developmental needs and the capacity [and wish] to respond to those needs? As an adult psychiatrist looking back at the parental contributions to the difficulties my patients presented, it’s failures in the areas I mentioned that caused the problems rather than defined adjectives like race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or even things like psychiatric diagnosis.<\/div>\n

Dr. George Rekers<\/strong>, a Minister and Psychologist, has thrust himself into the public light this week as a hypocrite. Professionally, he has campaigned tirelessly against homosexuality: gay marriage; gay adoption and foster parenting; and the gay lifestyle in general – testifying as an expert witness in highly visible court cases. He is likewise on the Board of NARTH<\/strong> [National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] and was a co-founder of the Family Research Council<\/strong>, an anti-gay organization. Personally, he was recently on vacation with a gay prostitute\/escort – raising questions about his own sexual orientation which obviously bears on his professional opinions.<\/p>\n

Rekers has testified in suits in Arkansas and Florida opposing gay adoption\/fostering based on "scientific evidence." The Attorney that hired Rekers and the Judge in the case both saw his testimony as suspect [which it is]. I’ve extracted the outline of his logic from his Arkansas deposition<\/strong><\/a> at the end of this post. Acceptance as adoptive\/fostering  parents is a rigorous though subjective process for heterosexual couples, but there are a few objective disqualifiers. People with a criminal history, with significant mental illness, or with pedophillia are rejected outright. Rekers argues that homosexuals should be in this forbidden group.<\/p>\n

There is no science in any of this, mostly opinion, and the logic is intrinsically flawed. But there are a couple of things that stand out. He talks about  "homosexually-behaving adults<\/font>." When he mentions "homosexuals<\/font>" or "homosexual adults<\/font>," it’s in the context of being their defective. In light of his own behavior, one can only imagine how much rationalization he goes through internally to explain himself to himself.<\/p>\n

For example, there’s IIB:<\/div>\n