Comments on: NARTH Responds To Rekers Controversy

By: Maurice Lacunza

Maurice Lacunza — Fri, 07 May 2010 18:29:28 +0000

My dear students and friends, the Quo problem is solved with basic Behavioralism 101. If you give it attention, negative or positive, it tends to strengthen the behavior.

Rewards tend to increase behavior and consequences tend to decrease behavior.
But, If you want to extinguish behavior, you give it NO ATTENTION at all.

So John and Jason have it correctly.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Fri, 07 May 2010 17:28:51 +0000

John, that’s what I’ve been doing and at the very least it’s helped me!

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:36:06 +0000

I never agreed to that.

By: John in the Bay Area

John in the Bay Area — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:12:53 +0000

I thought that we were trying to encourage Quo to spend less time online arguing with gay people who are comfortable with who they are, so that he might instead spend his time getting the help he clearly needs. Nothing is more effective in dealing with him then treating his posts as if they don’t exist.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:59:03 +0000

The “vicious” commentary directed at Rekers is of no significance in comparison to the vicious attacks Rekers made on the lives and loves of gay people. Leave it to Quo to wail about the unimportant and to ignore a tragedy.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:46:42 +0000

Rekers has profited greatly from both his personal hypocrisy of promoting the mythical gay cure that never worked on him, and generally viciously attacking gay people and supporting people who viciously attack gay people.

He deserves all “vicious commentary” directed at him. As does Ted Haggard. As does NARTH in general.

When you put economics above honesty, fraud above integrity, and discrimination, bigotry, and endless militant attacks on a minority’s freedoms above acceptance and love, you do not get a free pass.

By: Allen

Allen — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:46:29 +0000

Quo,

NARTH may be responding to Rekers in a “sensitive and genuinely humane way” but their claim to be “a professional scientific organization” is blatantly dishonest.

As for your blanket assertion about “Rekers’s gay critics”, not all of his critics are gay and not all are “vicious” as you claim. I think it’s fair to point out that Rekers was paid with Florida taxpayer funds for “expert testimony”, even though the court, with good reason, did not recognize him as an expert. Furthermore I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out that, in spite of his lack of expertise, he kept the money and apparently used it to hire a male prostitute whom he took on a trip to Europe.

These are facts. Perhaps you phrased your original statement poorly, but I hope you don’t think that anyone who states the facts is a vicious gay critic.

By: Quo

Quo — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:39:38 +0000

Allen,

Rekers looks very probably guilty as charged. I’m simply noting that NARTH is responding to the matter in a sensitive and genuinely humane way, while of course Rekers’s gay critics aren’t.

By: Allen

Allen — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:14:39 +0000

Quo, could you please clarify whether you think Rekers is innocent? I realize you’re not exactly defending him, but the fact that you’re attacking his critics suggests that you’re trying to distract people from the real issue.

As for the supposedly “vicious commentary the incident involving Rekers has received here”, does the fact that Rekers is being criticized somehow exonerate him?

By: Maurice Lacunza

Maurice Lacunza — Fri, 07 May 2010 03:32:54 +0000

To Quo:
Burroway’s comment isn’t intended to build a nurturing and caring relationship with NARTH.

His comment is to point out the obvious: the work and science of NARTH is faulty. Not even their leaders can become straight! The comment is intended to connect the dots. You cannot change a persons’ sexual orientation. Don’t let the whitewash of NARTH’s statement guide you to a place of acceptance. NARTH is bad science; period!

NARTH could have said, Gee, maybe what we do around here doesn’t really work. Maybe we should look hard at ourselves when our top leaders turn out to be gay. NARTH has no such self reflection. Instead they reiterate the same junk science; albeit it was polite.

To Jim: Good work BTB on all the articles. Thank you in case no one else does.