Homo au Go Go,

I am really enjoying every post you make attacking Dr Cameron, because it gives me another opportunity to expose the LIES, PROPAGANDA and UNETHICAL TACTICS AND CONDUCT by gay activists. So keep those accusations coming - you just keep reinforcing my arguments!


CAMERON'S BACKGROUND
Actually Cameron was Associate Professor in Human Development and the Family, not "an instructor in psychology."

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS
See my last post. I already showed this was a lie. Just because a person uses another's research for a purpose for which the original author did not intend, does not mean that they distorted or misrepresented it. Note that NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of Cameron's alleged distortions/misrepresentations have been offered.

1983 ISIS STUDY
Gay activists claim Cameron's study and methodology is statistically bogus, but note that it has been published in a number of scientific peer-reviewed (and some very prestigious) journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn. Compare this to the gay activists, who publish their criticisms and "refutations" in left wing newspapers and on yahoo websites!

Thus, it would appear that only gay activists (and other gullible people who listen to them) think Cameron's research is bogus, not scientists.

Furthermore, Cameron's sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the technique "works;" that is, whether Cameron's results stack-up against other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI's results compare to the recent U. Chicago effort? Even though U Chicago effort had a much greater budget it only got responses from 3,200 adults. Cameron's study got responses from 5,200 adults. In the end, the results were actually very close.

SMALL SAMPLES
Activists argue that the small number of reponses (41 male homosexuals and 24 Lesbians) invalidates any attempts to draw conclusions about the sexual behavior of the Lesbian and Gay population.

Firstly, this claim (which comes straight from gay activist Pietrzyk - who else!) doesn't even accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in Cameron's sample. Cameron reported comparisons between those who were exclusively heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. There were approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison (as in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question). Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations.

The U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its sample!!!
See Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: U. Chicago Press.

The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that Cameron, unlike Kinsey and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a tiny fraction of the population (1-2%), they show up in small numbers in any survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of his results to "urban homosexuals-in-general," at least for the time he did the survey.

Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But Cameron's findings, based on a random sample a twelfth the size of Kinsey's, are far more apt to be representative of homosexuals in general. In fact, as studies about homosexual lifestyles and habits accumulate, Cameron's conclusions look more and more "solid." For eg, Cameron reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that they had been "raped." The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape, per se, but reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were "forced to do something sexually at some time."

YOUR CHOICE?
Basically, it boils down to believing:
1. Paul Cameron who is professionally trained (PhD in psychology) psychological and sociological researcher who has presented papers at professional psychological associations, and published his findings in prestigious academic peer-reviewed science journals such as Science, Lancet, Psychological Reports, and who has responded to criticisms leveled against him with documentatory evidence demonstrating their falsity,
OR
2. Mark Pietrzyk (and his gullible regurgitators), who is not a psychologist, sociologist, statistician or qualified in any science at all (so what would he know about statistics or methodology?) but is a member of gay political club with a PhD in political science, who publishes his totally unsubstantiated and in most cases demonstrably wrong, criticisms in left wing papers and on Yahoo websites...

Much more detailed info and refutations to specific claims of distortion etc can be found at:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html

Is Mark Pietrzyk and a few websites regurgitating his bare-face lies the best you can offer? Come on Homo, surely you can do better than that?

AK

Aslan,

You're relying entirely on Cameron's own defence of his work; work which has been condemned not just by Pietrik (a conservative gay journalist) but by a series of professional associations, including the prestigious American Psychological Asociation and American Sociological Association. The original complaints about Cameron came from researchers whose work he seriously misrepresented, not from gays.

Thanks for the invite to footnote all my comments, but I work two jobs and have better things to do. Despite your footnotes -- all from from Cameron himself -- I have more faith in professional organisations such as the APA and ASA than in Cameron. Perhaps this is partly because I have the advantage of living amongst the gay community, knowing hundreds of gay people in all their diversity and knowing first hand that Cameron's claims are a crock. Of course, you don't need to know hundreds of gay friends to conclude Cameron is a dangerous man suffering from a hateful obsession. I'm confident most unbiased readers will come to that very conclusion.

Consequently, I really don't care if you and your fellow travellers in the Salt Shakers and Australian Family Association continue to
cite Cameron's bogus studies in your parliamentary submissions inter alia, because to all but those few MPs who are already theologically-insane, a single hysterical Cameron claim discredits the entire submission.

He's fast becoming one of the best allies we've got. Maybe he's really one of us?

This is turning into 'My scholar can kick your scholars butt' :)
just read Romans 1 homo.

>just read Romans1, homo

I've read it, David, and I don't believe it. I simply don't believe The Bible is the unerring word of God. Though not without its truths and profundities, it was written by men, not God. Consequently, it is only as good, and just as flawed as the men who wrote it -- not one of whom even knew Jesus when he walked the Earth. Paul, who wrote Romans, seems a particularly flawed man if the accusations of misogyny levelled against him are true. Certainly, he recommended heterosexual marriage only for the weak. Celibacy was his preferred lifestyle for all.

Leviticus and Romans do not stand in the way of my relationship with Jesus, whom I embrace in good conscience.

GOGO
Paul is the one who wrote "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her"

Not much by way of 'misogyny' there mate :) The most difficult verse Paul ever wrote (I think he was momentarily stumped for words) was "and women will be saved by having Children"..but I put that in the bigger context of all that he said.
With this in mind, have a read of what a 'feminist Jew' writes about him, it came as quite a surprise to me (just now)
http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm

You don't believe the Bible. OK.. that much is clear and can be regarded as the basis on which your approach is founded. Likewise, I do believe it and so on.

The preferred state in the light of the 'work of the gospel' is celibacy. It is not a 'command' It is his clearly expressed personal opinion, which he differentiated from 'revealed' truth. (quite noteworthy in itself that his man KNEW what was from God and what was from his opinion)
Have a nice day

Boaz, you dismiss the debate between Aslan and Homo au Go Go on Cameron's credentials as no more than "my scholar can kick your scholar's butt". Wrong, Boaz. Homo au Go Go has blown Aslan's poor silly butt out of the water with the facts.

Every time god-botherers rush to their american fundy websites for "scientific" support on gay-bashing etc they come up with another set of nonsensical "statistics" and "conclusions". There are hundreds of people paid to write this sort of lying, devious, and cold-hearted propaganda in america and publish it on websites for the consumption of the naive and the stupid. That does not it make true.

The fact is that Cameron (and his acolyte Aslan) has no more credibility on homosexuality than your own biblical tracts when it comes to describing what goes on in the real world that most of us inhabit.