Here's what I wrote in the Catholic Answers Forum:
Anyone wanting to quote George Rekers as a reliable source now? Given his 10-day European jaunt with a rentboy who gave him daily erotic massages?
Matthew 23:27 (Douay Rheims)
27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
Holly - the main witness for the state of Florida in the recent court case to prevent Gays from adopting children was this False Witness.
He was paid $120,000 of taxpayers money to make stuff up. Which he did. (He also earlier tried to get $200,000 from the state of Arkansas for the same thing, but had to settle for $60,000 as his performance was insufficiently credible)
In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ... called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ... said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
Lederman may have been put off by the fact that Rekers said based on "research," a case could be made for banning Native Americans from adopting children.
Some 4 years ago, he himself adopted a 16 year old boy, the same age as his "travelling companion".
These are the kind of people you have to use as "reliable sources". Hypocrites. Liars for Hire. Because no-one else will tell you what you want to hear, what you want to be true.
And here's the family he was employed to destroy.
No Good Christian Heterosexual couple volunteered to take these two damaged youngsters in.The children arrived…on the evening of December 11, 2004. John, the elder sibling, arrived with his four-month old brother wearing a dirty adult sized t-shirt and sneakers four sizes too small that seemed more like flip-flops than shoes. Both children were suffering from scalp ringworm. Although John was clearly suffering from a severe case of ringworm, the medication brought from John’s home to treat his scalp was unopened and expired. James, too, suffered from an untreated ear infection, as evidenced by the one-month old, nearly unused, medication. John did not speak and had no affect. He had one concern: changing, feeding, and caring for his baby brother. It was clear from the children’s first evening at the Petitioner-Roe home that the baby’s main caretaker was John, his four year old brother…And here’s what their world turned into — the world Rekers wanted to kick them out of:
For the first few months, John seemed depressed and presented a void, unresponsive demeanor and appearance. Upon arriving at the Petitioner home, John did not speak a word for about one week. After two weeks, he began to mumble imperceptible utterances. After about one month, John finally began speaking. Petitioner quickly learned that John had never seen a book, could not distinguish letters from numbers, could not identify colors and could not count. He could not hold a pencil. He had never been in an early childhood program or day care. Nevertheless, John’s potential for educational development was apparent. Although he had not had any formal education, John could sing and pick up lyrics very quickly. Early on, Petitioner and Roe noticed that John hoarded food by requesting additional servings at the start of dinnertime and later hiding the extra food in his room. John eventually grew out of this behavior, due in part to a tactic employed by Petitioner and Roe of showing John, in advance of mealtime, the more than sufficient amount of food on the stove prepared and available for the family.
James was a very happy baby and was content with anyone, even strangers. After approximately two months, James began to exhibit signs of attachment to his primary caregivers, Petitioner and Roe. John, however, took about two years to fully bond. At one time, John shunned hugs from Petitioner and Roe. However, in his own time, John developed bonding and today, initiates goodbye hugs each morning before going to school.On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast, he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first. Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.
After dinner, the children spend one hour doing their homework. Although James does not have homework, he spends time at the table pretending to do homework. John requires more supervision and one-on-one interaction to complete his homework. If a child finishes his homework early, the remaining time is spent reading. After homework is completed, the children are allowed to watch television. At bedtime, the boys retreat to their separate beds. By morning, however, James seems to always find his way into John’s bed.
The family attends a non-denominational Christian church and have as pets, a dog, rabbit and kitten. John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as “papi” and “daddy” respectively. John and James have lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same school, day care and aftercare since their arrival in the Petitioner-Roe home. As a result, each child has created friendships from school and in the neighborhood. John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe’s parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe’s mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.
None have done so since.
If separated from their parents, they will be sent to separate state institutions.
Dr Rekers testified under oath that even if they'd have been with their new parents for ten years, it would still be in the children's best interests to split them up and institutionalise them.
The man is a monster. He's also the senior guiding light of NARTH's "Scientific" advisory committee, and also the American College of Pediatrics (ACP), a religious activist group where non-pediatricians, even non-medical personnel, are encouraged to join. They have no affiliation with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the actual medical body that represents pediatricians. Last month, the ACP launched a campaign called "Facts About Youth," and began contacting educators to spread the "facts" about homosexuality. The AAP has declared the ACP literature to be scientifically baseless.
Rikers is also the co-founder of the Family Research Council, prior to its merger with Focus on the Family. He was in charge of UCLA's "Feminine Boy" project, where he lied about the good results he'd had from psychologically and physically torturing gay and trans kids to "straighten them out". He concealed the many suicides and suicide attempts that resulted.
Many members of this forum have quoted NARTH, or FotF, or the FRC, or the ACP in good faith, not knowing any better. Warnings by others of the mendacity and "Junk Science" manufactured by this man and Paul Cameron have been dismissed as typical Leftist propaganda, utterly baseless. "He said, she said".
Hopefully this will open your eyes. I'm not holding my breath.
By all means believe that the Almighty meant X to happen, or Y, or Z. But don't lie to try to justify with bogus "science" your religious beliefs. And don't quote those who do, when you know they do.
I suppose I better quote some eyewitnesses to Dr Rekers activities at UCLA:
Parents who brought their children to Rekers had to agree to participate in the "curing" of them. "Kraig," a four-year-old who participated in the UCLA Feminine Boy Project, was also monitored in the clinic's play-observation room. Only this time, it was his mother who wore the bug-in-the-ear, listening for her behavioral cues from the folks behind the wall. While playing, "Kraig would have seen her suddenly jerk upright, and look away from him toward the one-way window," Burke reports (based on transcripts of his case):
His mother was being prompted, through the earphones, by the doctor. She was told to completely ignore him, because he was engaged in feminine play. Kraig would have no understanding of what was happening to his mother. On one such occasion, his distress was such that he began to scream, but his mother just looked away. His anxiety increased, and he did whatever he could to get her to respond to him, but she just looked away. She must have seemed like a stranger to have changed her behavior toward him so suddenly and for no apparent reason . . . He was described as being in a panic, alternating between sobs and "aggressing at her," but again, when his distraught mother finally looked at him and began to respond, she stopped mid-sentence and abruptly turned away, as if he were not there. Kraig became so hysterical, and his mother so uncomfortable, that one of the clinicians had to enter and take Kraig, screaming, from the room.
Kraig's treatment continued in this vein. He was also put on the "token system" at home. Inappropriate, feminine behaviors earned him a red token, masculine ones, a blue token. Each red token earned him a spanking from his father. After more than two years of treatment, Kraig's behavior had turned around. He was now described by his mother as a "rough neck," and he no longer cared if his hair was neat or his clothes matched. But when he was eighteen, after years of being held up (under a pseudonym) by Rekers as "the poster boy for behavioral treatment of boyhood effeminacy," Kraig attempted suicide, because he thought that he might be gay.
Matthew 23:23-24 (Douay Rheims)
23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
I don't hate the man. I confess I have difficulty being suitably charitable to him, and forgiveness is out of the question at the moment, he's shown no signs of repentance or restitution, preferring to try one contradictory story after another to "clear his name".
I'm sorry, but he doesn't matter to me. He should, he's a human being, but I have great .difficulty caring a fig what happens to him at the moment. I should, and I'll try to.
But I hate his sins. I hate the sadism and cruelty. The bearing of false witness.
And I'm not too keen on the situation where people would rather see kids kill themselves than be gay. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Sources: Please read them, I've only skimmed the surface.
UPDATE - This piece:
The Christian World View of the Family
Edited by Dr. George Rekers, Ph.D., Chairman; Jerry Regier, M.A.B.S., Co-Chairman; With contributions by members of the Family Committee of The Coalition on Revival; Dr. Jay Grimstead, General Editor; E. Calvin Beisner, M.A., Assistant to the General Editor
9. We affirm that a man's authority as head of his wife is delegated to him by God; that this means that his legitimate authority over his wife is limited by what God's Word allows him; and that all authority is established by God and no one and no social institution has the right to exert any authority contrary to God's laws or the bounds God has set for the man's office in the family (Romans 13:1; Ephesians 5:22-23)....Temporary disfigurement is A-OK though. Just don't break bones. Major ones, anyway.
42. We affirm that sexual abuse and parents' willfully depriving their children of shelter, clothing, food, sleep, or essential medical care, thus endangering their lives and physical health, should be treated as unlawful assault or attempted murder and the offenders punished accordingly by civil government and disciplined by the Church. We deny that the state has a right to impose unrealistic standards on families; that the so-called offenses of "emotional neglect," "emotional abuse," "educational neglect," etc., which form the bulk of substantiated reports of "child abuse and neglect," are in fact crimes against children; that the state has any right to administer criminal penalties or usurp custody in neglect cases except when a child's life or physical health is obviously endangered; and that the state should ever administer criminal penalties or usurp custody in cases where the only accusation concerns mental health, since the state should not mandate what particular beliefs and attitudes are healthy or acceptable. We further deny that involuntary circumstances should ever be treated as a crime, and that even sinful families are helped more by the threat of removing their children rather than by prayer, godly instruction, and loving assistance.
45. We affirm that Biblical spanking may cause temporary and superficial bruises or welts that do not constitute child abuse, but that proven brutality to a child resulting in permanent disfigurement or serious injury should be punished by law (Exodus 21:23,24; Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13,14).....
Dr Rekers told his travelling companion that he was a child psychologist. And indeed, he's "treated" many children. Entirely in accordance with Biblical principles, I'm sure.
One thing though. Dr Rekers is not gay. No, really. His masseur/luggage carrier stated as follows:
Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks," as the escort puts it. "Rekers liked to be rubbed down there," he says.Ah, but such a massage by a young, strong, hard-bodied escort from rentboy.com does not make you gay. Even if he's in the nude.
In Howard vs Arkansas the judge stated:
In counterpoint to the quality of Dr Lamb's testimony was the testimony provided by Dr George Rekers. It was apparent from Dr Rekers testimony and attitude on the stand that he was there primarily to promote his own personal ideology. If the furtherance of such ideology meant providing the court with only partial information or selectively analyzing study results that was acceptable to Dr Rekers. Dr Rekers was unable to testify without referring to approximately seventy pages of notes. A large part of his testimony was not responsive to the questions being asked him but consisted of Dr Rekers simply reading his prepared notes on a topic he wished to promote. For the most part, whether on direct examination or cross examination, he was unable or unwilling to directly answer a question.... Dr Rekers willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his function as an expert provider of fact renders his testimony extremely suspect and of little, if any, assistance to the court in resolving the difficult issues presented by this case. Dr Rekers personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues. One example being that after testifying at length about how transitions were stressful for foster children and should be avoided if possible, Dr Rekers then testified that it was hypothetically in the child's best interests to be removed from a successful fourteen-year foster relationship in a homosexual household for the sole purpose of placement in a heterosexual household. When informed of Dr Rekers statement on such point, Dr Lamb testified that such statement was an "extraordinary suggestion" that "flies in the face of all that we know about the importance of relationships between children and parent figures". Such portion of Dr Rekers testimony is also directly contrary to the legislative intent of the Arkansas General Assembly... which states that "The policy of the state of Arkansas is that children in the custody of the Department of Human Services should have stable placements."In this case, it clearly states:
Homosexual, for the purposes of this rule, shall mean any person who voluntarily and knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual contact involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person of the same gender...George Alan Rickers merely had his genitals and anal area manually fondled by a nude rentboy. There was no oral contact, so according to a law Dr Rekers must be intimately familiar with, he's not Gay at all. Just a fine upstanding (VERY upstanding according to his masseur) Christian Gentleman, who's very, very straight indeed. Yes siree. Completely straight.
Because if he wasn't, he'd be one of those awful Gays. And that is unthinkable to him.