The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Anti-LGBT Propagandist Published Again in Academic Journal

By Evelyn Schlatter on September 20, 2012 - 10:03 am, Posted in Anti-LGBT, Christian Right, Extremist Propaganda

Psychologist Paul Cameron has been bashing LGBT people for at least 30 years. His continued demonization of LGBT people and the shoddy and suspect research methods he uses to advance his claims have earned his Family Research Institute (FRI) a place on the SPLC’s anti-LGBT hate group list. They have also earned him censure from a number of professional organizations and harsh critiques of his work (try here, here, and here for starters). In spite of all that, Cameron’s pseudoscience is still widely used to disparage LGBT people, especially by the religious right, and he still finds venues for his articles, some of which aren’t pay-to-publish.

Most recently, Marriage and Family Review, an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis Group, released one of his articles, something the Christian Post made note of earlier this month (Cameron’s co-author is his son, Kirk, no relation to the actor). The article is a rebuttal of sorts to the work of psychologist Evelyn Hooker, whose groundbreaking research in the 1950s exploded the myth that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Cameron doesn’t agree, of course, and claims in the Christian Post that “homosexuals have a host of mental problems, disproportionate physical problems [and] they don’t live as long, and they are disproportionately involved in drug abuse and criminality.”

It’s par for the course for Cameron. After all, this is a man who in 2010 addressed a Polish audience in Krakow and claimed that “homosexuals are more apt to have sex with animals when they’re young, they’re more apt to have sex with animals when they’re adults.” In a 2012 appearance on Crosstalk on the Voice of Christian Youth radio network, he said, “Mark my words clearly; the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try.” As if that wasn’t clear enough, he compared gay men and lesbians to people who have sexual attractions to socks: “Those who engage in homosexuality or transgenderism or smelling socks, all these things make your life more difficult, and it’s reasonable to regard such people as being mentally deranged or mentally troubled.” He has a number of pamphlets available on the FRI’s website that make all manner of discredited claims about LGBT people, including that they’re more violent than heterosexuals, that they molest children, and one particularly sordid one that describes the alleged sex acts of gay men. That one has the dubious honor of making the rounds on white nationalist websites.

To be clear, Taylor & Francis Group publishes numerous academic journals, and each one has its own chief editor and editorial board. We were curious, though, about how a man with Cameron’s reputation for distorted research could pass an academic peer review. After all, a peer review involves (hopefully) checking the sources of an article and how they’re used in the argument the author makes.

So Hatewatch contacted the publisher’s social sciences editor with questions about management of the various journals. The editor informed us that the vetting and selection of journal content – including peer review – is the purview of each individual journal’s editor. Hence, our inquiry was passed along to Dr. Walter Schumm, editor of Marriage and Family Review and a professor in the department of family studies and human services at Kansas State University.

Schumm, as it turns out, was once listed as a member of an editorial board for a journal Cameron tried to launch, a journal that would reportedly charge authors $500 to publish an article. In the E-mail, Schumm said that Cameron submitted his article to Marriage and Family Review in response to Schumm’s open request for papers rebutting Hooker’s work.

“The essence of scholarship is the pursuit of truth, not political correctness,” Schumm wrote, adding, “If these accusers were focused on truth, they would rebut what Cameron had to say rather than making ad hominem attacks.”

Schumm said he doesn’t “have a rule that you cannot publish if some right or left wing organization doesn’t like you.” In fact, he said that “if I hear about such things, I might be more likely to invite such a person to submit a manuscript or comment.” He said he wants many different voices in the journal – “even voices that some may be trying to suppress.”

Schumm is no stranger to controversy when it come to research about LGBT people. In 2010, he published a paper in which he suggests that LGBT parents are more apt to have gay or lesbian children – that is, LGBT parents will “turn” their children gay through parental pressure and modeling. The study was published in the Journal of Biosocial Science (formerly the Eugenics Review, the publication of the British-based Eugenics Society, which advocated for legislation supportive of eugenics programs until the 1960s, when it decided to focus on biosocial science). The JBS, published in the UK through Cambridge, also has published Cameron. Hatewatch has contacted JBS in the past regarding the publication of Cameron’s work but received only one response, an acknowledgement of receiving the initial E-mail. We received no follow-up. And we’re not the only ones who experienced that. Hatewatch also contacted the Cambridge journals division but received no reply.

Schumm has also written for the online Mercatornet, a rightist site whose editors are based in Australia. Mercatornet has posted articles like this one, which claims that the “It Gets Better” campaign to help bulled LGBT children and teens is actually promoting “deviant sex.” And in a 2010 interview with the rightist LifeSiteNews, Schumm claimed that he found several studies demonstrating that lesbian relationships are unstable.

For his part, Schumm has in the past questioned Cameron’s contention that LGBT people are a danger to children. He explained in the E-mail responding to Hatewatch that Marriage and Family Review publishes a diversity of articles and that the journal welcomes comment on them.

Seems fair enough. But is it really in the interest of free speech, academic discourse and scientific research to publish the work of a man who has been censured by four professional academic organizations for his distorted research about LGBT people? A man who has, over the past 30 years, denigrated LGBT people and made false claims about them that range from the dangerous (they’re child molesters) to the ridiculous (gay men stick gerbils in their rectums)?

We think not.

  • Kiwiwriter

    I think I know who we’re talking about here. Yes, he should not be named.

    He seems unusually obsessed with homosexual acts…a lot of gay-bashers are, to an absurd length. One wonders where they have learned their expertise in the subject…..

  • Reynardine

    Aadila, if you go back a couple of months in the archives, I suspect you will find the corpse-defiler. Indeed, if you can search for those words in the archives, you should figure it out.

  • Reynardine

    It’s okay, Aron, I outed myself as female a week ago or so, when: (a) it became apparent the moderators do not allow anyone to be impugned with c*t or b*tch; (b) it was clear our Stammtisch regulars do not differentiate between male and female regulars; and (c) I got tired of launering myself for “tells”. It also tickled me when *Dr*. Zabetakis interpreted some remark I made to him as homophobic. Well, no. It was strictly a Balkan thing. I didn’t want to elaborate on any kind of a Balkan thing, because the next thing you know, you are mixing it with Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Herzegovinans (some of whom grow to giant sizes), Megleno-Romanians, Romanians proper, a few Gagauz… I could go on. Anyhow, not here.

    Thank you, though, for covering for a terrible little old lady all this time. I appreciate it.

  • aadila

    Eww. We sure get some sterling representatives of the human race on this blog.

  • Aron

    Aadila,

    Nope, I wasn’t referring to Deep Ecology. Rey picked up my reference immediately. As I wish to take his advice in not invoking him any further, I suggest you attempt to discern the identity from the previous comment.

  • Reynardine

    No, Aadila. This one is a corpse-defiler.

  • aadila

    Regarding the “unnamed one”…

    You’re not talking about Deep Ecology, are you? I’m sure that ruddy-faced little sophist is happily sipping schnapps and playing the althorn with his bruder somewhere. Thank goodness, far from here.

  • aadila

    @Sam Molloy re fascii. I am quite certain Mr. Cameron would love to be surrounded by lictors.

  • aadila

    Total agreement that the legitimacy of the journal determines the strength of its content, and that a bad article taints the entire publication.

    I once made a small contribution to an article published by an Oxford University law journal…the process was very rigorous. Reputable magazines, such as Atlantic Monthly, require authors to verify sources for each and every sentence before publication, and usually there is an editor who fact checks. Editors can’t recruit good authors if they have a bad reputation, nor do they gravitate to the better publications. Who wants to be put in the same basket as a bonehead?

    It seems the further one goes into esoteric subjects, the thinner the author pool. Thus, you may have biased professors trying to sell their crazy to obscure journal editors who agree politically with the conclusion…either without much academic merit. It takes a fair amount of reading to know which journals have credibility and which don’t. The test of merit isn’t whether we agree, it’s whether the journal has gravitas. And we only know that if each and every article is watertight.

    Nobody ever said that even in a first rate journal that you have to agree with any particular findings. It is perfectly valid to question the legitmacy of an article of journal you don’t agree with and it happens all the time. I disagree with Dan Zabetakis and Tom in this regard. Reactionary intolerance is distinct from informed dissent.

    Academic research best follows a mode of inquiry that others can recognize, refer to, expand upon … or debunk. Thus a full body of research is required for intellectual enquiry, not a single article. Who is carrying forward these findings? Cameron’s voice in the wilderness is an insignificant footnote to bigotry, at best.

  • Erika

    Has anyone considered the possibility that the one who shall not be named is actually Paul Cameron?

    And Jan, how in the world does asking someone to teach them how to sew curtains equal loving for attention? Knowing how to sew is a useful skill and sewing curtains generally takes place in private.

    And did you know that many heterosexuals also love attention? Have you ever watched so called “reality” television where what are presumably otherwise sane heterosexual women do degrading tasks in skimpy clothes* solely for a chance to be on television? How about gone to a straight bar? How about gone to a beach?

    * Obviously men also degrade themselves on reality television but they are not universally required to exploit their bodies while doing so. See also those news tarts on Fox News, Haw Haw!

  • http://agreyeagle(nonpub) jan heaton

    Grandmothers answer to this question is- Privates should stay private- Publics should stay Public- Unfortunatly exposure of private concerns and Body Parts SELL magazines,advertising, and newspapers more than “dry Facts”- My “gay” friends love attention- Donnie flipped his purse at everyone- Steve had me teach him to sew curtains-Each person has choices in life, to- “Do No HARM”- if we mind our own business we wont have time to critique anyone else! (Call me when YOU ARE PERFECT!)- a once in a lifetime event! a grey eagle-P.S. N.Websters Dictionary tells the true meaning of each word-READ It and quit your manipulated verbalizing!

  • Reynardine

    No, Aron, don’t invoke him. I’m short on sexton’s spades and latex gloves.

  • Aron

    You know, there’s somebody I expected to make an appearance here, but I am so glad he decided against it.

    I won’t utter his name, but I think we all know to whom I’m referring.

  • Kiwiwriter

    I have always felt that the most vicious gay-bashers are themselves deeply closeted gays, who batter at other gays to

    a) distract attention from their own sexuality
    b) try to kill the closet gay within them.

    Gay-bashers are obsessed with and fascinated by gay sex practices, which makes me wonder why they are so obsessed with and fascinated by something they think is so repulsive. How do they know so much? If they’re not bothering you, who cares?

    Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover are the archetypes of this kind of person, but there are others. I vividly remember the chief gay-basher in my middle school 35 years ago, leading a little group of like-minded bullies in attacking all gays, real and imaginary. Two years later, I saw him in front of the gay church in my neighborhood. He recognized me and called me over.

    He was going into the church’s service that evening, having discovered his “true self.” I realized why he battered suspected gays so much…and I had never seen him with a girl.

  • BOB

    Yes, the threat of domestic terrorism is on the rise. With this Administration expanding the divisions among groups in the US and supporting religious extremists who wish to destroy the western life style, we are very much in trouble.
    While the left preaches tolerance and appologizes for anyone with values and standards, the truth is they are against anyone who does not agree with them – just like those on the right who they so openly attack.
    Only when we admit one-size does NOT fit all will we have a prayer!

  • Sam Molloy

    Ezra, you are right, no tests have been made on the effect on society. No tests are necessary because the Constitution guarantees our liberties. Fascism is not an economic theory, it is named for the bundled stick symbol of control known as a Fasci. You can see them on the back of a dime. A Roosevelt dime. Control is dangerous no matter who exersizes it.

  • Karen Stewart

    It’s not a matter of censorship. Paul Cameron spreads provable lies that result in greater hatred of LGBT persons. This is called defamation and it is in no way protected by the First Amendment.

  • Erika

    *sigh* no matter how many times you repeat this, it still needs to be repeated once again:

    freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to have someone publish you.

    freedom os speech also does not mean that just because someone is published in a seemingly “creditible” source that they are beyond criticism.

    and anyone who gives too much credence to the fact that something is in a peer reviewed journal just remember that some of the most prestigious medical journals around published tobacco industry sponsored research questioning the dangers of smoking well into the 1980s. some very prestigous scientists attached to very prestigious medical schools were on the tobacco industry payroll solely to call into question the danger of smoking.

    That also goes on with teh pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry and global warming denial. The scam that the tobacco industry perfected is you fund a ton of research – then publish that which supports your side and burn what doesn’t.

    Scholarly journals are not above political manipulation – especially if operated by someone with an agenda.

    if you really believe that “free speech” means that someone has to publish what you are saying, go to your local television station and ask to be put on the air (for free so leave infomercials out of this) for a half hour to talk about a subject of your choice – especially if that subject is something (and repreesnts an opinion) that the large corproation doesn’t want to appear..

  • http://N/A Mr. J. Pellegrino

    Paul Cameron seems to be a ‘repressed homosexual’ by his ‘display’ of psychological work! How come he still has a psychologist’s license? Why hasn’t his license to practice been pulled nationally, so that he cannot harm anyone else in society? I was sexually abused, in therapy session by a psychologist and then my lawful HIPPA were violated. I hope the U.S. Department of Justice pulls her license so she cannot hurt or abuse anyone else!. So, who is going to write that Mr. Cameron’s license to practice is revoked across the entire nation? I commend the SPLC for researching and analyzing the literature he is abusing and violating the National Hate Crime Laws with and in time, it will only catch up with him; he will eventually be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for his violations of the Federal Criminal and Civil Rights Hate Crime Laws of 2009!
    Respect to to SPLC and U.S. Department of Justice who investigate and enforce the laws!
    Mr. J. Pellegrino (TRANSGENDER MALE)

  • John

    Gay happens, historically, currently, and in the future.Unfortunately Idiots will also be with us past, present, and future!

  • http://None Lynn Bottge

    Me thinks the anti-LGBT folks dost protest too much. Something stinks in anti-LGBT land.

  • CoralSea

    David Cary Hart said it well — that there are academic journals and there are “Academic Journals.” I happen to contribute regularly to various “professional” journals that don’t always have a vigorous review process in cases of articles that are providing “field experience” (I work in the environmental consulting discipline).

    Especially in cases where a field is relatively new and expanding, some “out there” articles may be published because we are still finding our way around the block and creating some of the core literature that later professionals (or scholars) will examine, expand upon, debunk, etc.

    In this case, however, it seems a stretch that this article, which flies in the face of accepted research, would be up to snuff for most journals. One would hope that the vast majority of readers will look at Cameron’s work and realize that it is highly dubious.

    I do find it interesting how the “science” and “facts” challenged Far Right is so anxious to embrace “science” or other faux “scholarship” when it suits their purposes and defend it vigorously on the basis of its science or scholarship.

  • Tom

    Much as I am dismayed by Mr. Cameron’s views, I think Dan Zabetakis said it well – we shouldn’t censor ideas based on what feels wrong to us. Science requires that all ideas get a fair hearing. I have not read Cameron’s article, so I’ll reserve judgment on its scientific merits. But on the surface, it does seem to fly in the face of a great deal of other research. What particularly bothers me is that according to HateWatch, “Cameron submitted his article to Marriage and Family Review in response to Schumm’s open request for papers rebutting Hooker’s work.” Why is an editor specifically requesting papers that rebutt someone’s work, unless that editor has an ax to grind??? How can he be truly objective in evaluating the scientific merit of Cameron’s work if he was sympathetic to its objectives from the outset??? I think Schumm’s behavior in all of this is of greater concern to me than is Cameron’s.

  • Arthur Friedman

    I am very concerned that a “scholarly” journal would permit materials with no basis in fact to be published. As I librarian, I teach students that in order to be published in a scholarly journal, an article must be vetted by other scholars in the field for accuracy and good evidence of logical thought. I also tell them that when something is later found to be false – due to “fudged” data, for example – then the item may be retracted from the publication. If this article is appearing in this journal, without such vetting, then it calls into question ALL the articles published in the journal. The publisher of the journal bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of its publications. Perhaps we should be calling on the companies that produce the databases that we use to locate articles from this publication to remove it from their list of source material.

  • Kelly

    I believe it is only fair that gay people should ask both Schumm and Cameron’s wives what vile things they had to do to get these bozos off and to immediately have any family pets examined for possible rape.;

  • Constatine

    Ezra_mead—- Speaking as a gay man. I would never participate in academic research conducted by a person on the right. It’s not hate….The right just has never given the gay community any reason to trust them. I think many gay people, myself included, would be concerned that the results would be skewed. Cameron has done it. The right would have to earn the trust of the gay community, and there is nothing in the past or present that suggest that you would be trustworthy in conducting a fair study at this point in time. You have to remember, it’s the right that has passed the most aggressive anti gay laws, So again…It’s not hate…we just don’t trust you.

  • kevin

    It is a shame that an academic journal would print the writings of this charlatan.

  • David Robison

    Well, clearly, Schumm isn’t publishing a scientific journal and his concept of “review” is wildly different from that which is accepted in the scholarly community.

  • John

    It has been said that people go into psychology or psychiatry in order to figure themselves out. This seems to be true in his case, but he seems to have a few miles to go in his journey of discovery.

  • Jay

    Dan, I see your point but do not think the issue is the suppression of speech due to its political or social acceptability. Rather, the issue is whether the words of someone who has been censored by four academic journals for factual distortion (lies?) should be accepted for publication by an academic publication. What does it mean to be an academic journal? What standards do and should apply?

  • Herbert E. Larson

    I really am tired of people who when you state facts about what they say or think it has become sign of unreality. Never believe the facts if they go against the ideas you hold no matter how idiotic, ignorant and down right stupid they are.

  • Roger Bradley

    Why do you not ever post any of my posts on here. I support your organization and I don’t think Iv’e ever said anything offensive or is it all about politics?

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com WMDKitty

    He thinks we have sex with animals. Okay, which one of you showed him the Furry community?

  • Lee

    It is quite clear that Mr. Cameron has thought of crimes and
    abuses that most of us have never dreamed of. What else
    do we need to know?

  • Alanna

    “We must consider benefit or harm to society as a whole before we change the marriage laws.” This is the chicken or the egg problem. If you don’t let gays and lesbians marry, you will never get the answer. And yet, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rates in the country. According to the 2010 census, 131,729 out of 646,464 same-sex couples indicated they were legally married. For this insanely low number of people, apparently this country is willing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars invested in fear-mongering and doom-and-gloom.

    But then I have to ask, “What about divorce?” Divorce has caused way more harm than same-sex marriage could ever cause, and yet I don’t see anyone voting to get rid of divorce. Maybe instead of focusing on the few gay marriages, we should focus on the larger problem to society – divorce.

    Please – there just aren’t enough gay people in the US for this to destroy the fabric of an entire nation.

  • George

    Note that an academic journal does not publish work unless it meets a standard of scholarly rigor. My problem with the work is it fails to meet minimal standards. Hence, while it can be published for profit or self-published, it is not censorship to refuse to publish it in a venue that represents it as meeting standards of rigor it fails to meet.

  • Kiwiwriter

    Annie/Jason Smith/Ezra Mead is back again!

    Complete with yet another sex change…here strictly to derail the discussion!

    So, Annie/Jason/Ezra…do tell us how the Holocaust never happened!

    Then tell us how the Russian people greeted their Nazi invaders with flowers!

    Then tell us how Norman Rockwell sided with Hitler!

    Then show us your proof that the white man is superior to the black man!

    And tell us again how you’ll prove it to us, only if we pay you vast sums of money, showing that you’re into neo-Nazism and junior Fascism for that noblest of purposes…the money!

    Then you can give us citations and evidence for all these wacky ideas!

    Until then, the tumbrels await for you!

    See? I don’t even have to think in dealing with him/her/it…I just cut-and-paste my own stuff!

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com David Cary Hart

    Cameron’s background as a bigot should not disqualify him from publishing. The referee process is supposed to weed out the crackpottery. The only question is whether or not he makes supportable claims.

    Moreover, there are academic journals and then there are ACADEMIC JOURNALS. The better ones are double blind (reviewers don’t know who the author is and visa versa). They are also an extension to a university’s scholarly endeavors.

  • Reynardine

    Ezra, is “heterosexual marriage” good for society? Is it a good environment in which to raise children? Guess what? It depends on the stability, decency, compatibility, and good sense of the partners. The same is true of “homosexual marriage”. There is no one heterosexual marriage, and there is no one homosexual marriage. There are many individual marriages, and some are good, and some are not. Some people can, given reasonable circumstances, marry and establish a family with almost any decent partner of the preferred gender. Some may have very specific requirements, which may never be met. Some people should not be married at all, and some should not have children at all.

  • supersonic250

    Ezra_Mead: You’re a moron. This isn’t “science.” This isn’t “intelligent debate.” This is a bigoted jerk spreading blatant lies about the most victimized group of people in the world in order to justify hatred against them. And academia is NOT subject to free speech. If someone is publishing papers that are undeniably FALSE, then he should not be allowed to publish those papers.

    And Paul Cameron has never done a LICK of legitimate research in his life, so he cannot be a scientist. There’s no science to be found there. And the Left likes using logic, because FACTS have a liberal bias. The Right attempts to combat this with blatant falsehoods and insults, which always have a conservative bias.

    Please go to school and get an education before you come in here and spout that BS?

  • concernedcitizen

    People are free to believe as they wish in this country but people are not free to invade on the civil liberties of others. And that is what we are facing more and more of today. We have people in this Country determined to push hate and divide, and determined to spit in the face of the civil liberties that are God given rights of every citizen, those rights that are protected by our Constitution.

    What’s worse is that these types of individuals have bred themselves into factions that believe they have some sort of inherent authority to act in whatever fashion necessary to push their bigoted agenda.

    We don’t have to be gay to understand that people do not have a right to go around committing acts of violence against any community be it gay or minority. Acts such as these fly in the face and tarnish everything that it means to be an American.

    It’s a shame that our culture has allowed ignorance to thrive and go so far out of check, that we would still be witnessing today unconscionable acts of hate against innocent men, women and children.

  • Roger B

    It always amazes me the way people that believe this kind of misinformation perpetuate the very thing they are trying to convince other people of.as being the truth. It’s almost like a self fulfilling prophecy because the more they put out this kind of misinformation the more hatred they create toward us as homosexuals and then we do have more problems because of his kind of actions.
    This countries obsession with sex certainly contributes to the problem and not just within the homosexual community but in many other areas of society as well. It just continues to perpetuate stereotypes.
    They cause the mental struggle and then stand and say see, I told you so.
    Cammeron certainly has an unhealthy obsession with the subject. Maybe if he realized that by causing more hatred toward us he is actually destroying himself out of self hatred for what he is himself.

  • http://www.bugbrennan.com Cathy Brennan

    Pretty sure Paul Cameron makes anti-gay statements. Don’t hide that behind the LGBT.

  • Muriel Zimmermann

    Thank you for the work you do. I have very close friends and relatives in the LGBT community and we appreciate the exposure that you give to these ill-informed zealots who would do harm to good people.

  • Dan Zabetakis

    “But is it really in the interest of free speech, academic discourse and scientific research to publish the work of a man who has been censured by four professional academic organizations for his distorted research about LGBT people?”

    You’re not going to like it, but the answer is yes.

    There is no aspect of academic freedom that says a person’s work should be reviewed for political or social acceptability prior to publication.

    There would be no benefit to society to stop the publication of unpopular ideas or research. We can only find out the truth through a process that allows the full expression of all ideas freely and openly.

    How else would we have overturned to majority view that homosexuality is a mental illness? Hooker’s work would have been blocked and censored under the exact same standard you are advancing for Cameron.

    2 out of 10, must do better.

  • Aron

    TWO Kirk Camerons who happen to virulent homophobes?

    Absolutely incredible!

    Maybe they can get together and exchange banana theories.

  • Erika

    And this is yet another reason why i don’t think that the fact that something was published in a peer reviewed journal really means much.

    On another note, they seem to be rather obsessed with “deviant sex” which seems to be one of those concepts which is really within the eye of the beholder. i suspect that if you really looked at the numbers the vast majority of what they consider “deviant sex” is done by hetereosexuals. Unless of course, their entire definition of deviance is that it is conducted by two people of the same sex.

    They also seem to have quite a problem distinguishing between consensual acts between consenting adults and forcible sex acts.

  • Ezra_mead

    The Left has always used Critical Theory to critique their opposition; but when we on the Right put them on the couch so to speak, they call it ‘hate’.

    Those of us on the Right who study homosexuality as a phenomenon and publishing our findings are simply engaging in academic research — not ‘hate’.

    We want open debate & analysis of homosexual behavior, lifestyle, and its consequences. That is not ‘hate’.

    Is a homosexual marriage equivalent and interchangeable with a hetrosexual marriage? The Left accepts this as dogma and disallows debate. Is homosexuality good for society? Again, the Left does not allow the question to be asked. Will homosexual marriage benefit society as a whole? We’re not allowed to ask. Will an increase in homosexual behavior benefit the community? How will it benefit society? Will it increase the tax base? Improve the economy? Reduce crime? What is it correlated with in a neighborhood? These things have not been studied

    Individual rights are not the only consideration. We must consider benefit or harm to society as a whole before we change the marriage laws. What percentage of gays enter into a gay marriage where it is now legal? What is the divorce rate? In places where gay marriage is now legal, lets study how it has benefited or harmed that society. Has that society improved?

  • aadila

    It doesn’t take a PhD to understand that being homosexual in America means facing tons of social challenges that heterosexuals don’t face — including rejection from family members, which is one of the most significant. Add to that snide jokes, hypocrisy, cultural assumptions, religious bigotry, self-esteem issues, and violence simply for not complying with the rule of compulsory heterosexuality, and it seems to me there is a lot more going on than the mere fact of being attracted to the same gender.

    So I guess I wonder what America would look like without the gay bashing, take that out first, and see what kind of society we would have. That’s the starting point. Any other approach seems to merely perpetuate the social conditions that make it harder for people to just live out their lives with any semblance of normality. By rejecting homosexuals, we potentiate difficult integration with society. We put wood on the fire so to speak.

    Then, when people break down, relationships break down, lives break down, quack social scientists are there to cackle with glee and rub their cold little fingers and say see, I told you so! They don’t want a better society. They just want people to suffer.

  • Sam Molloy

    This is known as Projection. Paul Cameron obviously has some bizarre personal issues that he uses for reference material.