Today's Morning Blast counts six- yes, six- posts from "Christianist" hate blogger Sunlit Uplands.
Funnily, for somebody who claims some of his best friends are gays, Folksy links to this
Cassidy spew:
A study presented at the symposium in Mexico, “Homosexual Adoption: What Science Has Discovered,” revealed that most children adopted by same-sex couples display “greater levels of stress,” and suffer from “suicidal tendencies and attempts.”The story is from the Catholic News Agency, which cherry-picks quotes while not linking to the actual study so readers can't make up their own minds.
But it does mention its author: University of South Carolina professor George Rekers, an emeritus professor of the University of South Carolina.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Reker's academic standing:
George Alan Rekers is an officer of NARTH, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.[2] Despite NARTH's position as a secular organization, Rekers has testified in court that he believes the Bible is the infallible word of God, and that homosexuality is a sin.[3]His personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, according to the ACLU, interferes with his being able to give an unbiased professional opinion on LGBT topics, including gay adoption.[4] Rekers was an expert witness in a 2004 case involving gay adoption in Arkansas, which had banned LGBT people from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Timothy White, Pulaski County's circuit court judge ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."[5]
In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in In re: Gill, a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she 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."[5]
No comments:
Post a Comment