If homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in the showers, having sex in the barracks, and straights will undergo sensitivity training. Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.

These are the truths that no one will speak.

Forget about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT). The issue is NOT about whether those engaging in homosexual sex are, or are not, asked about their ‘sexual preferences.’ The real issue is whether the federal law against sodomy in the armed forces will be abolished either by statute or practice. If the law is abolished, not only will there be open homosexual sex in the barracks, but regulations against hostility to it will be enforced with vigor.

Of course, almost no one else is saying these things. So how can FRI be sure they are true?

It is the ‘nature’ of most homosexuals to ‘do their thing’ — and the more public the better. This characteristic has been noted throughout history. Sex, to the homosexually addicted, is close to the be-all and end-all of life. Why else have 300,000 male homosexuals died of AIDS, even though the mechanism — penile-anal sex — has been known since 1983? Why else do so many homosexuals engage in public sex? Why are there ‘gay pride’ parades?

How else to explain Adam Lambert? Instead of becoming just another rich ‘star,’ on November 22, he performed at the American Music Awards, broadcast on ABC. During his number, he proceeded to grind one of his dancer’s faces into his pelvis, grab the crotch of another, and passionately kiss his male keyboardist¹. That “performance is something I’m extremely proud of and I wouldn’t change a thing. I am glad it facilitated a conversation about what kind of double standards there are out there.”

The risks homosexuals pose for the military are evident in an interview we recently conducted with a woman in basic training. Homosexuals are sensing that whining and complaining about their lack of rights, along with sheer persistence, are about to win them the prize. Homosexuals may care about protecting the country, but that care is almost always trumped by their homosexual compulsions. See if you can identify the compulsive behavior in the following interview recorded February 1-2, 2010. The female enlistee we spoke with was recalling her 2009 experiences in Basic Training:

Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.

“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!

“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies — things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”

Comment: If young men and women showered together, dressed together, etc. — how much ‘serious business’ could be accomplished? The answer is the same as to why single-sex schools generally produce better learning. When you are on ‘sexual alert’ you spend energy avoiding or seeking sexual attention. The military is focused on smashing and killing enemies. Given the age of most soldiers, sexual interest is necessarily ‘along for the ride,’ but getting trained and doing your job are both compromised by the easy availability of sex (e.g., STDs in WWI disabled almost as many as were wounded).

Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?

Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.

“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in [the armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”

Comment: The rates of lesbianism implied by this enlistee are much higher than polls suggesting that about 8% of servicewomen engage in homosexuality. Perhaps this is an anomaly or an unusual unit or training discharges are not counted. Or perhaps this enlistee was speculating without knowing the hard numbers.

Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?

Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away. I’m not sure about any of the others.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?

Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCOs [non-commissioned officers] in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”

Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?

Woman: “I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”

Comment: Right and left lesbians were being warned, disciplined, and discharged. Yet they almost all persisted. Homosexual sex overwhelms rationality, overwhelms the desire to serve, and pushes aside a sense of propriety and scale.

Other Testimony

The Washington Post², ‘campaigning’ as it were for homosexuality, led a recent story with the tale of a 26-year-old male homosexual. He admitted ‘dating’ another soldier in the combat arms battalion — that is, he was breaking military law against sodomy. Yet this homosexual bragged that he “won hearts and minds among my brothers in arms because I did my job well and went above and beyond. I was respected.” The Post story did not suggest his mates knew he was sodomizing another soldier — who knows what they would have thought if they knew? But the Post rhapsodized that:

“Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States and even in war zones. In Iraq, one e-mail group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant-messaging screen names and the base where they’re stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform.”

What are these ‘communities’ for other than illegal homosexual sex? Why would the Washington Post — self-proclaimed guardian of Washington — praise disruptive lawlessness?

Randy Shilts, acclaimed historian of the gay movement (he died of AIDS at 42), lauded similar single-minded lawlessness.³ But in one incident he placed the ‘fun and games’ at the Pentagon:

“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)

Assuming Shilts was reporting accurately, these homosexuals were apparently on the job. Yet they were so consumed with sex that they stood in line waiting their turn to engage in sodomy. Do heterosexuals do this? Not many in FRI’s experience. If homosexuals can’t control themselves at the Pentagon, what happens when the bullets fly, or during the many hours of ‘down time’ in training, traveling, waiting for orders, etc? [Re-read the interview with the female enlistee above.]

President Obama is pushing for a change that no ‘third party’ reports would be permitted to lead to dismissal of homosexual service personnel — effectively repealing the current federal law against sodomy in the armed forces. Thus, if two homosexuals have sex in the shower — as long as one of them doesn’t complain (and that is unlikely) — it will be considered ‘OK.’ The woman we interviewed could still report being ‘hit on,’ but she would not be able to object if three gals had sex next to her in their bunk. Would she have the right to complain if they also engaged in the grunts and groans homosexuals like to make in their parades, or would she merely put herself in line for more sensitivity training?

How many ‘straights’ want to serve under conditions where homosexual sex — in public or semi-private — is protected, but heterosexual sex is not? Some, perhaps. But many would simply not sign up or would leave. When the dust settles, who will end up defending the U.S.? How many will be left besides homosexuals and those who can tolerate being around them?

Conclusion

Given the foregoing testimony, does it make sense to let homosexuals serve openly or otherwise in the armed forces?

To homosexuals, it makes plenty of sense. Sex would be highly efficient and they would be quartered with any number of potential partners. They would be allowed to ply their compulsion in a veritable ‘candy store.’ And fellow service personnel who gave them grief for their ‘need to be who they are’ would be punished.

For the rest of us? No way. A sex-saturated military would have a hard time getting out of bed, exiting bathrooms and showers, maintaining discipline, etc. No nation can expect to survive that trusts its protection to the sex-obsessed.

Despite the evidence, President Obama seems determined to get rid of DADT. But at what risk to the U.S. military? This report examines very recent data on sexual assault reports in the military, as compiled by the Department of Defense (DoD)⁴, as well as telling and relevant testimony from eyewitnesses who have served. None of the evidence suggests much has changed since DADT was enacted, or that there is any justification for removing the ban on open service in the military by homosexuals.

Proportion of Homosexuals in U.S. Military

To examine the relative risk of homosexual assault by military personnel, estimates are needed of the composition of the armed forces by sexual orientation. Since the military formally excludes those who engage in homosexual sex, no official records are kept, and DADT forces those with homosexual preferences to keep quiet or else face expulsion. To sidestep this obstacle, we used weighted estimates from two federal self-report surveys: the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA; 12,381 respondents aged 18-59) and the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG; 12,571 respondents aged 15-44). Each survey asked about military service (though the NSFG only asked this question of men), and each indexed same-sex sexual behavior.

Homosexuals were counted as those who said they had had ’same-sex sex in the last 12 months.’ To account for the lack of female respondents in the NSFG on the subject of military experience, figures from DoD were used to assume that 13.5% of military personnel was female in 2002. Results from the two surveys are presented in Table 1, along with an average of the two. This average was taken as the basis for assessing the relative risk of homosexual sexual assault below, although the proportion of homosexuals is likely somewhat elevated due to the non-inclusion of active military personnel in the sampling frames of both federal surveys. Table 1 also includes a newer estimate computed by Gates⁵, published under the auspices of the pro-gay Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School. It employs different national surveys, but still utilizes an indirect method of estimation. It also uses tallies as of 2008 for the proportion of women in the U.S. military. These have steadily risen in recent years.

The estimates for male homosexuals with military service are very similar, while the more recent estimate of lesbians from the Williams Institute is somewhat higher than that derived from the NHSDA. This could be due to increasing proportions of lesbians (and/or women in general) in the military (see, for instance, the testimony below) or simply a sampling fluctuation attributable to the small samples of lesbians captured in national surveys.

Table 1. Estimated Prevalence of Homosexuals in U.S. Military

Source	Straight Men	Gays	Straight Women	Lesbians
1996 NHSDA	87.3%	1.11%	11.1%	0.51%
2002 NSFG	84.5%	2.0%	-	-
Mean Estimate	85.4%	1.56%	11.1%	0.51%
Gates, 2010	83.0%	1.26%	14.7%	0.97%

DoD Sexual Assaults Involving Military Personnel, FY2007 and FY2008

Table 2 compiles sexual assaults reported by DoD for 2007 and 2008. The notation “X on X” signifies the category/sex of perpetrator versus the category/sex of victim. Our analysis assumes that all same-sex sexual assaults were committed by homosexuals and that all opposite-sex sexual assaults were perpetrated by heterosexuals. Given the nearly 3 million individuals serving across the armed forces from year to year, the number of sexual assault reports is fairly small. However, most analysts assume that sexual assault is a highly under-reported crime, and DoD makes this assumption as well within the military. Therefore, the figures reported in Table 2 are likely to represent only a fraction of the actual number of assaults.

Table 2. Sexual Assault Reports Across DoD for FY2007 and FY2008

Relative Risk of Homosexual Sexual Assault

To gauge the relative risk of sexual assault involving military personnel by homosexual practitioners, we computed approximate odds ratios⁶ in FY2007 and FY2008 for the categories of total assaults and ‘Service on Service’ (signifying an intra-service assault). Estimates were computed separately for male and female perpetrators. These results are presented in Table 3 and 4. Table 3 utilizes our estimates of the proportion of homosexual servicemen and servicewomen, while Table 4 employs the Williams Institute estimates.

In each table, the odds ratio represents the relative odds that the actions of a homosexual practitioner would generate a sexual assault report compared to the actions of a non-homosexual, same gender counterpart. Thus, in 2007 for intra-service assaults, male perpetrators were nearly 6 times as likely to be homosexual as heterosexual. The confidence intervals assume - as does DoD - that the reported assaults are only a sample of the true number that occur each year; further, that there is year-to-year variance in the number of reports. They do not fully account for the fact that the composition of the military by sexual orientation has been estimated, rather than already known. Any confidence interval containing the value 1 suggests a non-significant difference in risk of sexual assault. Entire intervals exceeding 1 suggest a significant increase in sexual assault risk due to homosexual practitioners.

Regardless of which estimates of homosexual prevalence in the U.S. military were used, Tables 3 and 4 indicate a significantly higher relative risk of sexual assault by homosexuals than by heterosexuals, for both 2007 and 2008. For males, the increased odds range from nearly 4 to almost 7 times the risk. For females - comparing lesbians versus heterosexual females - the increased odds are even greater, ranging from nearly 10 to over 30 times the risk. Each comparison was statistically significant.

Table 3. Odds Ratios of Sexual Assault Risk Using FRI Prevalence Estimates

Year/Perpetrator	Category of Assault	Est. % Homosexual	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Int.
FY2007-Male	Service on Service	1.56%	5.72	(4.68, 7.00)
	All		4.67	(3.93, 5.54)
FY2008-Male	Service on Service		5.03	(4.08, 6.20)
	All		3.62	(3.02, 4.34)
FY2007-Female	Service on Service	0.51%	21.8	(7.02, 67.5)
	All		32.7	(11.6, 91.8)
FY2008-Female	Service on Service		19.1	(6.91, 52.5)
	All		14.0	(6.06, 32.3)

Table 4. Odds Ratios of Sexual Assault Risk Using Williams Institute Prevalence Estimates

Eyewitness Testimony

Corroborating the data above on disproportionate risk of homosexual sexual assault in the U.S. military are the following three sets of eyewitness testimony. The first is a personal interview we conducted with a woman who left basic training in late 2009. Second is the testimony of Col. Richard H. Black (USA Ret.) - as reported in the Washington Times - who, from 1992-1994, served as Chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. Lastly, we document the testimony of Randy Shilts, acclaimed as perhaps the premiere historian of the gay movement.

The personal interview was recorded February 1-2, 2010 by Dr. Paul Cameron. The comments from a woman-in-training, speaking about her experiences in 2009, have been slightly edited to protect her identity:

Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.

“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!

“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies - things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”

Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?

Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.

“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in the [armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?

Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away, I’m not sure about any of the others.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?

Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCO’s in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”

Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?

“I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harrassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.)

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.) wrote the following column in the Washington Times on February 2, 2010⁷:

“President Obama’s promise to repeal the ban on gays in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.

“Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by the President with implementing the change. But that task has proven difficult. On Jan. 15, 2010, The Washington Times reported that ‘Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military….’ There are good reasons why top officers, including the current Marine Commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.

“From 1992-94, I served as Chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon.  During that time, Pres. Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force DOD to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense regulations stating that ‘homosexuality is incompatible with military service.’ The UCMJ prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children, and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

“Even as Congress was wrestling with Clinton’s proposal on gays, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Ft. Hood, Texas. Gays had advertised a Ft. Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual consensual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publically committing serious acts on post. Officers, NCOs and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank. The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the Chief of Public Affairs referred to it as a ‘potentially explosive issue.’ It was ‘explosive’ because it contradicted the Administration’s campaign to portray gay GIs as ‘perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force.’

“At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being frequently committed by homosexual GIs. To be certain, gays weren’t the only soldiers committing crimes. But the Administration’s proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

“Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. But they are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

“Gays dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

“Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Quantico, a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

“Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause ‘disruption’ and ’serious problems.’ (Skelton opposes repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ TheHill.com Jan. 15, 2010.) Ike Skelton is correct.

“And assaults aren’t the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between gays while others are present. The Ft. Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

“If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

“Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the drill fields of Parris Island and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment.  Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly-disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

“President Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the U.S. House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.”

Randy Shilts, Gay Historian

Col. Black’s testimony jibes well with that provided by Randy Shilts⁸, acclaimed historian of the gay movement. Shilts reported that restroom shenanigans similar to those at Ft. Hood occurred at the Pentagon:

“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)

No one ever reported that when blacks were excluded from the military they longed for the ‘right’ to have sex in public facilities. No, they simply wanted to be treated as soldiers. Yet Shilts exults in the fact that gays in the Pentagon had taken over at least one of its public restrooms. Further, that gays “literally” stand in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in quasi-public sex.

Whether Shilts got the exact location of the bathroom correct is irrelevant. Psychiatrists and psychologists contend that homosexuals, their desires, and their activities are ‘normal,’ making discrimination against homosexuals ‘unfair.’ Yet how many ‘normal’ individuals spend their lunch hour engaging in quasi-public sex?

Most people manage to focus on work while they are ‘on the job.’ According to Shilts, not so these homosexuals, who were apparently willing to ’stand in line’ for sex. While Shilts decried the ‘prejudice’ that people have against homosexuality, what kind of prejudice is it when there are members of the military who feel not only a necessity to “stand in line” for sex on their lunch break, but who also don’t consider what they are doing as disruptive to military life?

Shilts documented what he considers all kinds of involvement by homosexuals in the military, from gay admirals to graduates of all three military academies, to serving in the astronaut program.

“Over the past twenty years, as the gay community has taken form in cities across the nation, a vast gay subculture has emerged within the military, in every branch of the service, among both officers and enlisted.” (p. 3)

Unfortunately, those who engage in homosexuality seldom do the hard work of getting married and raising kids, and have to live off the efforts of those who do. The evidence is clear that homosexuals in the military are at much higher risk for perpetrating sexual assaults, and that they are disruptive to military life. Yet, homosexuals claim that ‘civil rights’ should allow them to openly join the military should they so choose. Indeed, they claim theirs is a struggle against the ‘prejudiced’ and ‘bigots.’ The sordid facts say otherwise.

References

Nevertheless, here we are with a distinct possibility of losing the Prop 8 trial in California. Why? Largely because many on the pro-family side of the aisle want to win only if they can show positive advantages to heterosexual marriage while simultaneously not criticizing homosexuals, their unions, or their actions. The Wall Street Journal quoted Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect-Marriage.com, as saying “We do not have to show that same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriage - but just that traditional marriage is a reasonable tool to promote the public’s interest.” (WSJ, 1/22/10, A5)

David Boies, co-lead attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs “said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples,… ‘We’ve proven all three of those.’ In response, defense lawyer Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.” [WSJ 1/23/10, A3]

In our view, there are essentially three strategies in any trial about social policy. You can demonstrate that: 1) what you are against is harmful to society; 2) what you are for is harmed by what you are against; and/or 3) what you are against is inferior to what you are for (or that what you are for is superior to what you are against).

The first two strategies necessitate proving that something is harmful, dangerous, or injurious. They are the strongest arguments because almost everyone understands that something harmful or bad for society should be stopped/prevented/regulated/criminalized/marginalized/etc. Arguing that something you support is merely ‘better than’ or ’superior to’ what you’re against is the weakest argument. It is weakened further if you don’t invoke strategies (1) and (2), because your silence implies that those arguments are not true or might not be true.

At least from the media reports, plaintiff attorney Boies feels he has carried the first two strategies, while Pugno feels content to try to prove the third. On the January 25^th Hugh Hewitt radio show, an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) spokesman repeatedly asserted that all they had to do to win - given the well-worn rules of ‘how the law is supposed to be’ - was to prove that conventional marriage was better than ‘gay marriage.’

But what if the court regards this potential violation of ‘human rights’ as exceptional (as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954), and not subject to the ‘usual rules?’ The court might regard this contest as a debate about public policy. In that setting, since the gay marriage supporters have ‘proven’ that arguments (1) and (2) are not true by default (since no rebuttal was offered, (1) and (2) must not have legal merit), and the Prop 8 supporters have proven that (3) is true, a 2:1 split might cause the court to render a decision against Prop 8 as the most reasonable judgment. In other words, if there is no proof that homosexuals and their couplings are harmful to society, and no hard evidence (only speculation) that acceptance of homosexual marriage dilutes the value of real marriage, what is to prevent the court from seeing the issue strictly in terms of civil rights and unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals?

Amazingly enough, FRI has solid empirical evidence that (1) and (2) are true: that are there are real harms associated with homosexuality and homosexual marriage. But that evidence is being deliberately neglected. Why?

Some on the pro-family side undoubtedly are pursuing this strategy because they don’t want to ‘offend’ gays, lest they or others think they are ‘unloving and harsh.’ Some are worried that homosexuals might refuse to attend ‘ex-gay ministries’ if they expose their activities and reinforce the basis for the contempt in which many hold homosexual practitioners. Others want to take what they consider ‘the high road, criticizing no one, just standing for the good.’ Whatever the motivation, Jesus was not arrested and crucified for saying that ‘the current system is OK, only my way is better.’ Just about every social or religious reformer makes that kind of claim. Instead, Jesus harshly criticized the moral authorities of his day.

Those who want to color the world happy forget that there is a time for animus and a time for reconciliation. Animus toward those who seek to corrupt society and seduce children is a good thing. ‘Playing only nice’ with vandals results in courtroom losses, and leads others to think that (1) and (2) must not be true.

Over the last three decades, I and my colleagues have been the only ones publishing empirical data on homosexuality in refereed scientific journals, with an aim at giving serious and balanced attention to the traditional perspective. We have demonstrated, among other things, disproportionate child molestation by homosexuals, the unhealthiness and excessive hazards and social costs of homosexuality, and that AIDS education is too inefficacious to warrant its social and financial expense. Further, we have contributed more empirical data than anyone else even in those areas where other traditionally-minded researchers have published findings on this topic. Important examples include homosexual parenting and homosexual unions. In particular, the evidence we have compiled in regard to homosexual couplings suggests they are worse for society (and the participants) than are heterosexual unions, because homosexual couples do more biologically troubling things to each other, reduce their promiscuity slightly if at all, and thereby spread disease more efficiently.

If anyone had hard evidence that my and my colleagues’ methods of doing science were faulty or that one of our publications was incorrect, it would be reasonable for them to publicly attack them or it - after all, we have published in a public arena, where such attacks are not only ‘fair game’ but part of the scientific process. Successful attackers would gain some scientific credibility by such a ploy. Indeed, scientific careers and reputations have been made by demonstrating flaws in others’ research publications.

But if we and our research are attacked simply because we are disliked or critics don’t agree with us, or because we are considered ‘too harsh,’ it’s a whole different ballgame. Because our research is almost all that stands between opponents of the gay agenda and being dismissed as ‘mere spokesmen for unsupportable, archaic opinions’ (or less kindly, ‘Bible thumpers’), neglecting our research seriously risks undercutting any scientific or empirical opposition to the homosexual movement.

Although it is self-serving, given the realities of our times, if the pro-family side is to have any chance of prevailing in situations where scientific facts could determine the outcome of a contest over homosexuality (e.g., in a court or legislature), prudence would demand that our research should not be attacked or neglected except for scientific malfeasance.

Prop 8: Behind the Scenes

The Prop 8 trial in California is an exemplar of this troubling situation. In substantial part because of long-term animus toward me by the gay community, ex-gays and their sponsors, and the academic community, I am not an expert witness, nor has our research been consulted or utilized.

Consider what Michael Lamb, head of Cambridge University’s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, testified (from various newspaper and wire services):

“Walker asked one of the most striking questions of the day - what the rash of pedophile priests suggested about the abilities of gays and lesbians in bringing up children. ‘You’ve testified that there is no reason to protect children from lesbians and gays,’ said Walker. ‘How do you square your statement with that phenomenon,’ the judge asked. ‘I don’t want to convey the fact that homosexual individuals never abuse children, simply that they are no more likely to do so than heterosexual individuals,’ Lamb replied. ‘In addition, he said no evidence exists that gays or lesbians were more likely to sexually abuse children.’”

Though we were not asked to testify, the truth is that we have published a number of studies - in peer-reviewed journals including The Journal of Psychology and Psychological Reports - that buttress the belief that those who engage in homosexuality are considerably more apt to molest children. Some of the evidence is from government-collected data (regarding, for example, teachers and foster parents), some from systematic compilations of media reports, some from self-report. All are consistent with higher rates of molestation by gays and lesbians. We have also referenced a number of studies conducted by other researchers that suggest the same.

“Lamb said there was no evidence that children with gay parents were more likely to become gay themselves or become victims of sexual abuse or incest.”

Despite Lamb’s claim of “no evidence,” our study, published in the peer reviewed journal, Adolescence, and cited in the Massachusetts gay marriage case (Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health, 2003), demonstrated both more frequent adoption of homosexuality and experience of sexual abuse from their parents by children with homosexual parents. The findings from this study have never been disproven, indeed they look as ’solid’ today as when they were published in 1996.

Likewise, my 2006 paper, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Biosocial Science, showed that children with homosexual parents were considerably more apt to themselves adopt homosexual preferences. The same is true of a number of our publications in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Reports.

When Lamb in his testimony dismissed Dr. Walter Schumm’s published work in Psychological Reports because “It was published in a journal where one has to pay to have it published, so it’s not really considered part of the literature,” he was incorrect (but apparently not challenged by the Prop 8 lawyers). Not only do the studies in Psychological Reports have to be peer-reviewed by other scientists to be published, but page costs are in fact quite common in science and professional journals.

Further, my work about domestic violence in same-sex partnerships, published in Psychological Reports, was considered authoritative enough to be referenced when the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics published its report on the topic in 2004¹ utilizing Canadian census data. Indeed, my paper, which summarized the literature to date and which brought in some findings from a number of relatively ‘unknown’ sources² was given ‘pride of place’ as references go:

“[homosexuals] experienced higher rates of spousal violence compared to heterosexual. Fifteen percent of gays or lesbians and 28% of bisexuals reported being victims of spousal abuse in comparison to 7% of heterosexuals. These findings are consistent with previous research (Cameron, 2003).”³

In the political correctness of our day, it is difficult to publish research that doesn’t support the gay agenda. Indeed, findings that don’t agree with the homosexual agenda are as popular in scientific publications as those that don’t support the notion of man-made global warming. So most of our work is published in less prestigious journals, but each is peer-reviewed. Having a study published in a prestigious journal is better for one’s reputation, to be sure. But the facts that are reported are what’s important, not necessarily the journal in which they are housed.

Indeed, having the facts and knowing the facts are crucial to any trial. Lawyers often naively assume that ‘a trial is always about the law, just as it says here in my law books.’ FRI has assumed instead - and history bears this out - that courts will become judges of social policy. So when David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, testified that allowing gay marriages would weaken the institution - likely leading to lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates for heterosexuals, as well as possible social acceptance of polygamy - he said what he should have. But when asked whether same-sex weddings could benefit gay couples and their children and Blankenhorn responded, “I believe it would be likely to do that,” it was more than a stumble.

The evidence, about which Blankenhorn appears not to have been briefed, suggests that having one gay parent is poor, but having two is worse. Why worse? One reason: because the child can never get away from a dysfunctional parent. If the ‘team’ splits up, the child must travel back and forth to both. Think of the former lesbian - now heterosexual - mother in Virginia. While in her ‘lesbian phase’ she was in a ‘domestic partnership’ with a woman in Vermont. When they split up, the lesbian demanded to see the child. A Vermont judge has ruled that the lesbian should have primary custody because the ‘now heterosexual mother’ won’t share the child. She and her child are hiding from the law.

If you will read the testimonies of lesbians’ children on our website Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/children-of-homosexual-parents-report-childhood-difficulties-2/), you will see no reason to believe that two poorer parents are better than one. Indeed, two give a ‘double dose’ of homosexual examples and double the pressure to ‘convert.’ Two also typically have more gay contacts; the risk is thereby increased that the child will be influenced or seduced.

What is best for the child is to have NO gay parents. One is bad, two is worse. One wonders how the lawyers defending Prop 8 left Blankenhorn ‘out to dry’ on this issue. Alas, instead of a published scholar, the pro-family side chose an activist as an expert. When this goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court, our side’s record will be weak indeed.

Guilt By Association

For some time now, homosexuals and their supporters on the Internet have referred to me and our organization as “discredited,” backed up by the likes of Wikipedia and other sites (Wikipedia clearly depicts what the homosexuals who monitor and contribute to it say). This, coupled with personal appeals and attacks by homosexuals, ex-gays, and the supporters of ex-gay ministries, has led some in the pro-family movement to ignore, neglect, and/or stop referencing our work.

One example: a large pro-family organization secretly (or, at least, unbeknownst to us) decided many years ago to stop referencing our research in any way and to pull all citations to us from its publications and website. An Executive Vice-President from this same organization recently told a large gathering “although Paul Cameron uses different words than Fred Phelps, Paul holds nearly the same view” and “[our ex-gay ministry] is led by those who have been homosexuals,… who have been called every ugly name that an unthinking person, a person like Paul, can call a homosexual.”

Needless to say, given attacks on us like these by the best-connected and most vocal defenders of traditional marriage, it is little wonder that the legal team defending Prop 8 was not directed our way, nor that they would disregard the empirical evidence we have compiled over the past 30 years. Yet it would appear that the pro-family movement is ‘cutting off its nose to spite its face.’

Indeed, the Prop 8 trial in California could easily be construed as ‘a situation that rises above mere legalities.’ In too many recent cases, liberal notions of ‘civil rights,’ ‘human rights,’ and ‘non-discrimination’ have trumped long-standing legal precedent. If it is so construed - by the judge, the 10^th circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court - then ‘our side’ will pay dearly for having ceded arguments (1) and (2) to gay rights activists.

All the homosexual activists, Western political leaders, and critical evangelicals seem to be up in arms over the fact that the Ugandan bill would imprison (perhaps for life) anyone found guilty of engaging in homosexuality and would potentially execute someone found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality,” the latter of which would include performing homosexual acts upon a minor or when the offender was in a position of authority (e.g., parent, teacher, etc.) or if one knew they were HIV-positive at the time. The bill also explicitly prohibits promotion of homosexuality by any individual or organization and further equates same-sex marriage with the offense of homosexuality.

Generally, according to FRI’s analysis, this is a good bill for those of a traditionalist bent. While no law can end a particular kind of crime, the proposed law makes clear what is not acceptable and should discourage some from acting on their same-sex desires. Interestingly, only acts (not ‘desires’ or ‘orientation’) are condemned, and only rape, especially of children, or recidivism can lead to a death sentence. And those carrying HIV/AIDS have no business engaging in and no right to engage in activities that could infect others.

The Church has a long history of supporting serious penalties, including capital punishment, against homosexual acts. In Rome’s Christian era (ca. 342 AD), homosexuality was made a capital crime, supported by Church bishops and explicit decrees of Roman emperors over the next 250-300 years. Justinian’s collection of Roman laws — including penalties for homosexuality — later became the basis for both canon (Church) law and European and English civil law. Historian Vern Bullough noted that “The earliest English secular legislation on the subject dates from 1533, when Parliament under Henry VIII classified buggery (by now a euphemism for same-sex activity, bestiality, and anal intercourse) as a felony. Penalties included death, losses of goods, and loss of lands.”

‘Liberal’ Thomas Jefferson regarded homosexuality as a serious crime (subject to castration for men, disfigurement for women), and he lived at a time when individuals could be executed for homosexual acts. Indeed, during his time New Hampshire passed an anti-adultery law under which convicted adulterers faced possibilities of standing on the gallows with a rope around their neck for an hour, up to 39 lashes, a year in jail, or a fine of 100 pounds.

Has our modern, ‘enlightened’ stance on adultery (that is, fully decriminalized) resulted in fewer broken homes or wrecked families, fewer divorces, and a more edifying social milieu for our kids? Do media reports of our sports heroes, entertainment stars, and politicians getting off essentially ‘scot-free’ despite serial adulteries provide a better example to our children than the social climate of early America? Are we morally superior for treating adulterers today so much more gently by eliminating the ‘barbaric’ penalties of the past?

The same analysis applies to homosexuality. If homosexual activity is accepted as no worse than a ‘victimless’ crime, with no overt ramifications for society or our children, then why indeed penalize it? Yet, just as with adultery or fornication, what might seem harmless on the surface is not so. Organized homosexuality is a serious assault upon our culture. Both child molestation and homosexuality (and they strongly overlap) cause significant problems for not only the victims, but also society.

Honorable people can differ on how severe should be the penalties for the various offenses catalogued in the Ugandan bill. But we find no warrant for considering this bill at odds with the historic values of either Christianity or democracy. From a democratic standpoint, those who live in a country ought to make the laws for that country. They, after all, know the situation on the ground far better than outsiders. They also know how much sacrifice of law-abiding citizens’ interests will be entailed if social resources are diverted from caring for and educating children etc. to imprison rather than execute a serious malefactor. It follows that Ugandans should make the laws for Uganda (and note how quickly liberal belief in ‘cultural diversity’ is ignored when it comes to homosexuality).

Uganda is poor, the West is rich. The West offers ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘penance’ in the penitentiary — both of which are very costly and only infrequently effective. After 10 years, most rates of recidivism and lapses from ‘counseling’ or ‘therapy’ are north of 80%. A poor society may have better things to do with its limited resources than provide housing, food, medical care, etc. to those criminally attacking it.

The other issue causing waves of protest in the West is that the Ugandan bill mandates that persons in positions of authority report to the police or relevant officials any persons they know to be engaged in a homosexual offense. Here, “authority” means “having power and control over other people because of your knowledge and official position; and shall include a person who exercises religious, political, economic or social authority…” Thus, pastors/priests, bosses, and teachers would apparently be required to report known homosexuals, or else:

“14. Failure to disclose the offence.
A person in authority, who being aware of the commission of any offence under this Act, omits to report the offence to the relevant authorities within twenty-four hours of having first had that knowledge, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years.”

Again, while this provision may seem offensive at first blush, remember that most states have similar laws regarding someone in authority not reporting the sexual molestation of a child or the possibility that a client may injure or kill someone. The issue again gets down to how seriously ‘evil’ we regard homosexual acts, and whether they should be treated in a serious, criminal manner.

Certainly, the proposed Ugandan bill offends those who believe that ‘democracy = sexual license,’ or who believe that ‘freedom of speech = sexual license.’ It also makes counseling a person tempted by homosexuality somewhat more difficult in that a counselor has to avoid knowing whether the client has engaged in homosexual acts. If this bill becomes law in Uganda, a counselor will first have to warn the client that they can only talk about desires and then deal with how to contain or redirect those desires. There would be no room for advising ‘how to get on with your homosexual lover,’ ‘safer homosexual sex,’ or the like. Just as well, since this kind of advice helps cement the client into a homosexual lifestyle.

In summary, Western politicians — let alone Western Christians — have no business criticizing Ugandans for proposing this bill. Many of its provisions would be welcome restorations to our own penal code.

Homosexuals have claimed for some time that they are no more apt than heterosexuals to molest children. Over the past three decades, professional associations have chimed in to support their claim. For instance, in Romer v. Evans, a 1994 brief by the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychiatric Association told the U.S. Supreme Court “there is no evidence of any positive correlation between homosexual orientation and child molestation” (pp. 23, 24). The same claims are made in most college textbooks. In fact, this position is so ingrained that two expert witnesses for State Attorney Generals’ offices told me they were banned from addressing disproportionate molestation when defending Arkansas regulations against foster parenting by homosexuals (decided June 29, 2006) and Florida’s defense of its law against homosexual adoption (decided November 25, 2008).

The state of knowledge was historically very different. In pre-Christian Greece, Aristophanes observed that men taken with homosexual relations “when they grow to be men, they become lovers of boys, and it requires the compulsion of convention to overcome their natural disinclination to marriage and procreation.” More recently, a 1970s survey conducted by the Kinsey Institute reported that while aged 21 or older, 23% of 671 gays said they had sex with boys aged 16 or younger. And of 4,329 gays sampled by Jay and Young — both open homosexuals — about 22% reported sex with boys and over 30% openness to, or approval of, sex with boys.

Despite this evidence, Scotland has decided to protect homosexual practitioners in a very significant way. Recent events in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee ought to jolt Scots into rethinking those protections.

May of 2009 saw the prosecution of 8 Scottish male homosexuals, the arrest of another 35+ homosexuals across the UK, and still more arrests of others in the Netherlands and the U.S. for mixtures of child abuse and pornography. The 8 “gang members, all seemingly respectable professionals, led sordid double lives,” newspapers complained. [Why should the media expect education or professionalism to somehow shield one from becoming a child molester?]

The ringleaders were Neil Strachan, 41 (infected with HIV) and James Rennie, 38. Although “seemingly respectable professionals,” Strachan had already been convicted of raping a 5 year-old boy in 1997. Well, one might say, ‘he deserves a second-chance.’ Yet he was convicted of raping another 18 month-old boy in 2003. How many chances does a rapist get in Scotland? Plenty, since his latest victim was another 18 month-old boy.

Strachan charmed-up the parents, and then volunteered to babysit the little guy. Of course he was charming, attentive, and said all the right things — monsters such as he have the game down pat.

Do his three assaults on boys mean that Strachan is a ‘pedophile’ with no desire for adult partners? No. Strachan was infected with HIV and had a ‘gay partner’ (also indicted). He almost certainly got infected with HIV by having anal sex with another man, so his ‘pedophilia’ was far from an exclusive appetite. Like most homosexuals, these 8 individuals were sexually ‘flexible’ or ‘omnisexual.’

Rennie was a ‘gay star.’ A Scottish newspaper called him “the outwardly respectable boss of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Scotland” (notice how far the Scots have fallen). As a secondary school teacher who had been invited to the Scottish Parliament for a debate on “helping young gay people,” his gay-rights activism was well known. His crime? Abusing a three-month old boy and permitting other members of the ‘gay clan’ to listen over the phone while he molested the tyke. Pictures, of course, were taken, and distributed far and wide. He too had a gay “partner,” trolled the Internet for gay sex dates, picked up “rent boys” [young male prostitutes], and “advertised a porn collection on toilet walls.” Yet another sexually obsessed ‘flexible fellow.’

Forgetting he had images of boys being molested on his hard-drive, the investigation started when Strachan took his laptop to get fixed. The repair shop noticed the 7,000+ pictures of naked and abused boys, etc. and notified police. The hard-drive turned up email lists of over 70 co-conspirators across the world. Police called it “the biggest and most challenging… paedophile network dismantled in Scotland.” A Netherlands comrade even bragged of having molested and ‘snuffed’ [killed] a little boy in France.

Rennie had exotic tastes. One of his emails indicated his longing to “see children with Down’s Syndrome sexually abused.” Sophisticated chap, eh?

All these perpetrators were “gay,” most were professionals. And the “church goer” who “helped with a kids’ after-school club” was married (but he also secretly had a gay partner, and used his wife’s email address to lure boys for sex).

Scotland has laws giving gays ‘super rights’ — they can’t even be criticized in letters to the editor. Clearly, giving super rights to the depraved results in super depravity.

How does a sexual taste for little boys come about?

A partial answer comes from South Africa’s Sunday Times (12/27/09). Seems “14 boys who live in a street in a working-class suburb of Cape Town” were caught having sex. “The children, aged between six and 13, have been… sodomising each other for months — allegedly after they watched a pornographic film together. A shocked parent told the Sunday Times that the case had come to light two weeks ago, when an eight-year-old was caught naked in bed with his three-year-old niece.

“He told (his father) that two of his friends, a nine-year-old and a 12-year-old, had sodomised him,” the parent said. The father took the boy to a doctor, who confirmed this. He then confronted the two alleged perpetrators, who said “they had been sodomised by another boy. The boys told us they had watched blue movies at the house of one of the older boys while his parents were at work,” another parent said. “The older boy then told ‘a group of about eight boys’ to ‘do what those people in the movie did.’ This started in September 2008, when the youngest was only five and the eldest 11” [by the way, this is fairly standard operating procedure — older boys induce younger boys to perform].

Notice what we have here: the boys ‘just happened’ to run across porn in one of their parents’ homes. Whether the pornography featured anal sex is hard to tell, but probably so. Kids, especially boys are curious. They know that adults do all kinds of ‘interesting’ and ‘fun’ things kids aren’t supposed to know about or do. This ‘sex ring’ ran for about a year before one of the parents stumbled upon it. Unfortunately, many of these boys are by now probably ‘into’ homosexual anal sex. No matter what their parents do or do not do to them, some of these boys will continue to sneak around and have homosexual sex. They ‘had fun’ and got away with it for a year — and getting away with something is yet another ‘coup’ on the parents.

Are they too young to ‘get hooked?’ No. Because of some parents’ purchases (or carelessness), all these boys are well-primed for an adult homosexual’s attentions while they are young. And homosexuals like the child-molesting Scots above make sure they are around kids whenever possible. When they reach their teens, who knows what these boys will do? Now that they have been ‘broken in,’ the trail of tears is just beginning — for them and their parents.

Which brings us to the UK Gay News (Warsaw, January 1, 2010). It scolded UK Tory leader Cameron’s new European Parliamentary allies, the Polish Law and Justice Party. What terrible thing is this Polish party doing? Why, “targeting gays as they demand a government clampdown on paedophiles and the Internet.”

This, the homosexuals assert, is “homophobia.”

Turns out that 27 Law and Justice Members of Parliament (MP) have signed a parliamentary question demanding the setting-up of a special department at the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita reported. “The team would monitor homosexual websites because we are dealing with the promotion of ‘paedophilia’ by some homosexual circles,” said MP Stanislaw Pieta, author of the parliamentary question. In addition, the MPs are demanding that the Ministry disclose statistics on the number of cases of paedophilia uncovered over the past ten years — and detailing cases that were homosexual. Mr. Pieta: “I am not saying that every gay is a paedophile, but let us consider Great Britain where from 20 to 43 percent of uncovered cases of paedophilia are homosexual instances, while gays make only 1% of society,” he said.

The MPs who signed the parliamentary question also want to know if police are given training in finding paedophiles among gays — and if police undertake ‘reconnaissance’ operations to monitor clubs frequented by gays. The MPs cite a Rzeczpospolita article in which gay activist Karski explained how a homosexual can evade the law and adopt a child. He “has pointed out a legal loophole which enables a crime to be committed,” MP Kozak told the newspaper.”

When I toured Poland in early 2009, I shared some of the extensive research that shows that gays are much more apt to molest children. I challenged Polish authorities to assemble their own data on child molestation. I also noted research documenting that homosexuals are more apt to engage in criminal pursuits. Homosexuals often feel that they are justified in breaking the law because they are ‘discriminated against’ and further justified in assaulting children because they were often assaulted (often they want to share the ‘fun’).

As you can see, criminality and homosexual tastes just seem to ‘go together’ — even in Poland. The Scottish experience shows that vile molestations, child pornography, and homosexuality go together. Let us hope the Poles can keep similar situations from occurring in their country. Gathering hard, empirical data is the first step.

	FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Success in Preventing AIDS? Not Really			Vol. 13 No. 4 Aug/Sept 1998

The headlines screamed, and even
National Public Radio crowed: even in the inner-city, AIDS can be prevented!

Imagine,
for less than $300 apiece, inner-city Blacks and Hispanics can be "taught
to use condoms" and, as a consequence, not get AIDS. If true, a BIG DEAL.
But the reality does not match the rhetoric.

Here was the plan. Separate those
coming to STD clinics by sex into small groups of 5 to 15 persons. Ask each
person to attend 7 twice-weekly 90-to-120 minute sessions on AIDS prevention/risk
reduction. At these sessions, have the leaders and other group members pressure
participants to be safe, use condoms, use clean needles, etc. Let a control
group just go to a 1 hour session featuring an AIDS prevention videotape. Then,
over the next year, assess the participants in the study at the 3rd month, 6th
month, and 12th month for: 1) self-reported claims of condom-use in the 90 days
before the interview, 2) for men only, STDs as indicated on their chart at the
STD clinic, and 3) at the 12th month follow-up, tested prevalence of chlamydia
and gonorrhea via a urine sample.

About 1850 were involved in each
of the experimental and control groups. Whether participants were paid is not
clear, but the average number of "booster" sessions (called "dosex")
that the experimental group attended was 5.2, and 63% attended 6 or 7 sessions.

The results?

The experimental group claimed that
they were using condoms more often than the control group at each of the 3 assessments.
While statistically significant, the differences were not enormous. The average
number of "unprotected intercourse acts" claimed at the 12th month
assessment was 16.7 for the controls, 13.2 for the experimentals who attended
5 or fewer sessions, and 11.2 for those experimentals who attended 6 or 7 sessions.
The experimental group also claimed fewer symptoms that were suggestive of STDs.

If you can take people at their word
on these matters, a mild success. The objective measures, however, were not
good news for the investigators.

When it came to STDs as indexed by
the STD clinic charts, there was no difference between the experimental and
control groups about 9% in each case contracted an STD over the year. The investigators
did find that gonorrhea was a bit less common in the men in the experimental
group (1%) than in the control men (2%) on the STD charts. But the urine test
at the 12th month found no statistically significant differences between the
groups in gonorrhea or chlamydia.

So what we have is a fairly strong
study that generated weak or no findings. Just like the French study in 1991
that found no effect of public AIDS education upon STD rates (Family Research
Report, June-Sept, 1991), this study found at most a "hint" that a
fairly intensive small-group effort might actually reduce STDs.

While the authors argued that people
could be relied upon to "tell the truth" about their condom use, FRI
is skeptical. But if the authors were correct, then consider what they didn’t
find. In contrast to the small correlation reported between attending more booster
sessions and self-reported condom use, there was no report of any correlation
between self-reported condom-use and STDs.

Why not? Apparently there was no
such correlation. This non-finding punches a hole in the condom-theory of STD
prevention. You have to wonder whether the belief in the efficacy of condoms
is one of science or one of faith.

Reference: NIMH
Multisite HIV prevention trial group. The NIMH multisite HIV prevention trail:
reducing HIV sexual risk behavior. Science, 1998,280, 1889-94.

FRI is often asked about ex-gay ministries.
We generally give mildly-endorsing referrals to these efforts. After all, their
intentions are good. However, these organizations are not an unmixed blessing.
Consider some of the following facts:

There
is no doubt that some who engage in homosexuality are converted or weaned
away from the lifestyle by these groups. This fact riles gay activists since
the bulk of them claim that they were born that way and can’t change. The existence
of those who have changed is a real ‘bug in the gay bonnet’ since it puts the
lie to one of their tactics. And it forces gay apologists to argue that those
who have changed weren’t really gay, or else they couldn’t have changed a rather
silly tautology that ignores the plain evidence.

Despite the living testimonials
of many ex-gays, there is little doubt that the cure rates among the ex-gay
organizations are nothing to brag about. All addictions, particularly sexual
addictions, are hard to break and many more people attempt to break away than
finally succeed. A great deal of time, effort, and money has to be expended
for each cure. Per dollar, the cure rate for sexual addictions is among the
worst of all the habitual sins.

Alcoholics Anonymous appears to have
popularized the ‘it takes one to save one’ slogan. Although this theme has influenced
many social workers over the past several decades, the evidence that it truly
works is not so clear. FRI has attempted to nail down proof that ex-druggies
do the best work converting druggies away from drugs, ex-drunks do the best
weaning alcoholics from alcohol, and ex-gays do the best converting homosexuals
away from homosexuality. So far, we have not found convincing evidence that
any of the Ex- programs run by Ex’s are more successful than programs manned
by non-professional non-Ex’s or those run by psychologists, social workers,
or psychiatrists. Either way, the success rate with addicts is not very high.

Because they tap into the ‘it takes
one to save one’ principle, the leaders of the ex-gay ministries don’t have
to have college degrees, and generally they don’t. The enthusiasm of the converted
is counted as good as or better than degrees. But perhaps formal learning doesn’t
make any difference when it comes to helping people. After all, many studies
that have compared the cure rates of students in psychology or psychiatry often
report as good or better cure rates for the students than Ph.D.s or M.D.s in
the field. Such heavy reliance upon enthusiasm, however, is troubling to those
that want reliable hard facts. After all, those who are not technically trained
will have difficulty evaluating the scientific literature on homosexuality (or
any other) topic. Enthusiasm is no substitute for the training that enables
critical evaluation of technical reports and scientific claims.

Everything Works Some of the Time

An important fact to remember when
evaluating the claims of any cure or program is that just about any treatment
or cure works for some people. In fact, FRI is unaware of any touted program,
from nude therapy to shock therapy and everything in between, that can’t claim
some successes and trot out some testimonials to prove it. There are always
some who testify that a given program did them some good or cured them.

The real issue then is not whether
some are helped, since some always are, but rather whether some reasonably predictable
proportion of those contacted by the Ex-program are cured. Further, how does
the proportion who are cured compare to the proportions cured by other programs
or simply by waiting until the person gets older (which works for most addictions
if the person doesn’t die first).

Usually, curative-minded groups or
treatments claim about a 1/3 success rate for those who stay the course of the
entire treatment. Of course, many addicts drop into Ex-groups for a look see.
Some will even try the program or treatment out for a while. But many, probably
even most, don’t stay the course. How do you count these people? If you consider
them failures, then the program looks worse. But it they are not counted at
all, that’s not quite fair either. Clearly, figuring cure rates for any given
Ex-program is exceptionally difficult.

Figuring cure rates is even more
difficult when the program or organization deliberately avoids collecting data.
Exodus, the largest Ex-gay consortium, does not collect any form of data on
cures or conversions. Instead, it collects data on number of books sold, number
of inquiries, number of attendees at conferences, etc. As with many social service
organizations, Exodus has no hard evidence that its approach works, other than
the usual set of testimonials.

In May we talked with a member of
the Exodus board of directors. He offered the usual social service line that
we don’t know how many were reached, but we know some are. And whether it’s
one or many, at least… We talked with leaders of another ex-gay group in June,
and they gave the same answer. This is somewhat frustrating, since there are
always people who would like funding under the guise of helping others. Prudence
dictates that programs demonstrate how much bang for the buck they deliver.
Unfortunately, like so many social service or helping programs, the ex-gay ministries
cannot provide that crucial information.

When government programs have been
carefully evaluated, they usually fail to accomplish much. So proof of efficacy
is both a legitimate and prudent request. When Bob Davies, North American director
of Exodus, was pinned by gay activists in mid-July, 1998 that two of the initial
leaders of Exodus had left their wives for homosexuality, he said "We don’t
claim to have 100 percent success. We know that there are many people that come
to Exodus who after a period of time realize that because of the difficulty
in the change process they lose heart and give up…that does not negate the
fact that there are many people who stick with it and experience significant
change." (Christian News 7/27/98)

As the example of Exodus suggests,
some of the leaders of the ex-gay movement appear to be still semi-entangled
with the lifestyle. As a consequence, a significant number of those in leadership
fall back into homosexuality, when, had they just quit, got away, stayed away,
and moved on, they might have escaped entirely.

It is a sad truth that those who
were once seriously involved with an addiction are more susceptible to the temptations
of that addiction than those who were never addicted to begin with. Public record
documents several cases of leaders of ex-alcoholic and ex-drug abuser programs
who ‘fell off the wagon.’ When those who are struggling with an addiction or
sin are around others who are so tempted, bad things can happen, and frequently
do.

For instance, imagine that you have
a large church. Adultery is a common problem. In a large congregation, it is
predictable that many are struggling with having committed adultery or being
sorely tempted to. Let us further imagine that you organize a program to help
such individuals. You announce that at such a time in such a room all those
who have committed adultery or desire to do so will meet together to comfort
each other, pray, read the Bible, listen to speeches from those who have overcome,
etc.

What will happen? Predictably, chaos.

Why?

Every man in the room will know that
every woman in the room either has or wants to commit adultery. Every woman
in the room will know that every man in the room either has or wants to commit
adultery. While some may be helped by this ministry, it is certain that the
program will also be a stimulus to pairing up adulterous individuals, serving
as a kind of introduction agency. By focusing a ministry on a particular sin
or problem, and bringing together those with that particular difficulty, significant
problems are almost guaranteed.

Consider this testimony from lesbian
Sandi Wiggins: "A little over ten years ago I was involved with two different
Ex-Gay ministries. I was involved to the point where I was a small group leader
and a hotline phone counselor. My thinking was completely change imperative.
I engaged Ex-Gay ministries because of my own deep cognitive and spiritual distress
about being a Christian and a lesbian. I met my partner at an Exodus conference.
About five years ago, I turned to yet a third Ex-gay ministry.

"Within the past two years,
I have been praying and brooding more intensely for resolution in my soul. I
had deeply internalized homophobia because of the way I understood that the
Bible and hence God thought about me. I totally believed that I could not live
a fulfilling life or be a Christian or be self-actualized unless my same gender
attractions disappeared.

"Now I have seen that all these
things are possible in my life and that I can truly continue to follow Jesus."

Notice the progression.

Sandi had "internalized homophobia."
That is, she felt bad about her involvement with homosexuality. But she DID
NOT WANT TO GIVE IT UP, so she hung around those with homosexual desires, ostensibly
to help them (and, FRI suspects, she genuinely wanted to help them quit). Still,
homosexuals were all around her. If she changed her mind again, the ‘right’
people were there to help her bail out and go back. Sandi hung around homosexuality
and homosexuals and eventually met her true [homosexual] love.

Jesus said that "If you love
me you will follow my commandments," including those commandments against
sexual immorality. Unfortunately, when asked to choose between sexual and/or
personal fulfillment and following Christ, people often choose the former and
reinterpret the latter.

If Ms. Wiggins had got free and moved
on, her life today might be very different. But now she is a cancer in both
the ex-gay movement and the church, arguing and proving by her very life that
one can claim to follow Jesus without actually doing so.

(To Be Continued in Next Issue)

Regan
Wolf, 40, lives in Lancaster, SC, a state considering a "hate crimes"
law. To prove how badly hate-crime protection was needed she presented herself,
beaten and bleeding, to police. But, as with so many other "hate crimes,"
it was faked. It seems Wolf paid someone to beat her and then spray paint both
her and her double-wide mobile home with hate slogans such as "Jesus weren’t
born for you, faggot."

Wolf’s mother, lover and other gay
rights activists have used her as a poster-child, pointing to her beatings,
as proof of the need for such laws. Gay rights groups have called her a symbol
of persecution and rallied at the State House for hate laws. They also blasted
law enforcement officials for dragging their feet in the investigation.

The sheriff noted that thousands
of hours of police time had been spent on her case. FRI has also learned that
the Attorney General’s office is probably going to proceed against Wolf. South
Carolina has solid laws against perjury.

What a strange world. "Hate
crimes" are so attractive that homosexuals injure themselves and their
property to "prove" that they are hated by others and to get sympathetic
attention. FRI is unaware of any other kind of new law that tempts so many people
to become "victims" because of its existence. Even though maybe half
of the claims of rape are false or embellished, anti-rape laws have been around
for a long time. The newly-created hate crimes laws are spawning a brand new
class of fake victims.

(NY Times 7/17/98)

Title IX, a federal law that bars
"sex discrimination," protects gays! That’s the decision of the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Under a ruling in Fayetteville,
AR, the OCR will "monitor the school system’s progress until June 1999."
Former Fayetteville student William Wagner, 17, and his parents active in Parents
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays brought the suit.

William, who was openly "gay,"
suffered "anti-Gay harassment throughout 1995 and 1996, when he was in
grades 8 to 10. Openly Gay, he was constantly jeered by students with epithets
like ‘fking faggot,’ was taunted about wanting sex with other boys and had drawings
passed around of him in sexual acts." In the 10th grade William was beat
up by some boys who were convicted of battery.

David Buckel of Lambda (an ACLU-like
organization for homosexuals), noted that since sexual orientation discrimination
in public schools is not barred by federal statute, the OCR had to be convinced
that the harassment William suffered was sexual. "Buckel notes that not
all anti-Gay discrimination and harassment in schools will constitute sexual
harassment under the federal statute. For example, he says, if students heckle
another student with anti-Gay comments but their actions or language do not
involve sexual conduct, those actions would not be sexual harassment. But other
abuse, as in the Wagner case, would constitute sexual harassment. For example,
Buckel says, if schools decide they don’t need to do anything about Gay-bashing
of boys because boys should settle their disputes off campus."

The Fayetteville school district
"agreed in the future to discipline students who sexually harass others;
monitor incidents of sexual discrimination and harassment; conduct training
for faculty and staff to deal with sexual harassment, including that directed
against Gay students; reiterate to students, faculty, and staff that sexual
harassment is prohibited; and hold an information and discussion session for
students on sexual harassment."

And the net result?

Hire more people to ‘re-educate the
educators.’

Perhaps they got off easy. After
all, the Ashland, WI school district had to pay another gay student $900,000
for his "torture" by fellow students.

(Freiberg, P. Washington
Blade, 6/26/98).

Marijuana use increased in the 1970s
among the school-aged. It then decreased in the 1980s, but has has gone back
up in the 1990s. What’s happening?

Good data on reported pot use has
been collected on U.S. high school seniors each year from 1975 through 1996.
Each year a reasonably-representative sample of about 15,000 students was asked
about their use of pot, whether they disapproved of the use of pot, to what
degree they thought marijuana use was dangerous, and various lifestyle factors
such as how committed they were to their religion, what kinds of grades they
got, how many hours they worked at a job per week, and whether they recreated
away from their family.

As a rule, the more religious and
better students were less apt to use pot, while students who had more evenings
out per week or who were truant were more apt to use marijuana. But, all told,
these lifestyle kinds of variables only "explained" about 21% of the
variance in whether or not students smoked pot. Almost half (49%) of the variance,
however, in students’ smoking patterns came from what they claimed to believe
about whether marijuana was harmful and whether they claimed to believe that
it was wrong to smoke it. The correlations between beliefs and behavior strongly
suggest that when students believe that there is less risk in smoking and/or
believe that pot use is OK, then personal use is apt to rise. Not surprisingly,
the authors argue for more government programs to convince students that pot
use is bad and dangerous.

There is a problem, however.

That problem is that the voters of
America have been making pot easier to get. And why? Because marijuana is supposed
to be "good medicine" for certain folk. Compassionate use is now permitted,
by a vote of the people, in California and Arizona. Attempts are underway to
make compassionate use legal throughout the U.S.

Americans, especially teenagers,
think that "medicine" is a good thing. If teenagers are starting to
think about pot like they think about vitamins, there is going to be even more
of an upswing in pot use.

So this kind of magical thinking
could transform a "little pot" into a kind of "good thing,"
since some people are helped by a lot of it.

Will students believe government
slogans and ads, or the votes of their parents and neighbors? Time will tell,
of course, but something may be afoot here that can’t be fixed with public service
announcements on TV and radio.

Reference: Bachman,
J. G., Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, PM. Explaining recent increases in students’
marijuana use: impacts of perceived risks and disapproval, 1976 through 1996.
American Journal Public Health, 88, 887-892.

Corner

Just where is AIDS headed? Are things
as "in control" as the Centers for Disease Control claims? Two disquieting
things crossed my desk recently that suggest otherwise.

First, Paul D. Green of Minneapolis,
MN wrote FRI and the authorities in Minnesota that "I have been a medical
insurance billing clerk for over 10 years now… at 2 major Minneapolis hospitals
in the billing department…. my job was to bill various insurance and Medicaid
programs for the patients’ bills. I was very alarmed that I was seeing so many
cases of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases including Chlamydia, Herpes,
Syphilis and others in far larger number than were being reported on television
as the totals of these diseases in the State of Minnesota, and I was only one
billing clerk…." I talked with Mr. Green at some length and found him
credible. I checked with other physicians who assured me that STDs are so frequently
underreported that they would not doubt his story.

Second, Cary Savitch, M.D. has written
a book about AIDS, The Nutcracker is Already Dancing (1997), that is also troubling.
Through his experiences he has come to positions about AIDS control that FRI
has advocated since 1983. But the thing that strikes the reader is the sheer
volume of cases of HIV infection that he is getting in the relatively "backwater"
city of Santa Barbara, CA. There are "too many cases" for what one
would expect given its location.

It may be that "something is
going on" that isn’t reaching the official statistical summaries of the
epidemic.

Family
Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social
policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the ‘headlines’
and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR
is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron,
Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron,
Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr
($40 foreign)

©1999

Family Research
Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs,
CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return
to top

Society justly discriminates against those who steal, dog it on the job, or swindle. On the basis of public health, it justly discriminates against smokers or those who use illegal drugs. Everyone recognizes how wrong and/or injurious these behaviors are and that they need to be discouraged.

But why doesn’t the same thing happen when one’s sexual lifestyle is so defective that they are more apt to commit suicide, get assorted STDs and cancers, and not live as long? What if they contribute less to society but, at the same time, are actually given more — in terms of benefits and protections — than average citizens? What is the response to being protected as a ‘sexual minority’ instead of being justly discriminated against? The answer? Seek even more protections — for injustice breeds more injustice.

What argument to use, however, for even more societal support? If someone is costing society more than most and contributing less than most — because of what sets them apart as a ‘sexual minority’ — and they further disrupt society by taking over rest areas, publicly having sex, and raising all kinds of cane… why shouldn’t society justly conclude that vigorous discrimination is the remedy?

The clear answer: turn the tables by contending that such discrimination is inherently unjust, and that being discriminated against causes all these bad things to happen to them.

Why not, in fact, launch a formal suit against society with these pretenses as evidence? Many might suppose ‘if they sue, surely they must be unjustly discriminated against.’ Further, filing such a suit could make it appear that society causes homosexuals to be less healthy. After all, most sane people don’t sue unless there is some merit to their case.

Of course, homosexuals are neither ‘normal’ nor particularly ‘sane.’ They are never going to frame the suit in terms of their behavior. Just how far would such a suit go if homosexuals publicly contended that they “innocently put their penises into places they don’t belong, got infected, so… society is to blame for any resulting infections and diseases…”?

No wonder then that the suit launched this year against Canadian society never mentions what homosexuals do or the medical consequences that result from this behavior. To hear the homosexuals tell it, it isn’t the anal sex or promiscuity that causes harm, it’s society’s disapproval of their activities.

Posturing as victims worked with AIDS. The slogan ‘everybody with AIDS is innocent’ seems too silly to have worked. But it did. HIV gets more research dollars per infected person than any other disease!

So why not run the same scheme for all the other maladies and troubles associated with the gay lifestyle? Exactly this is now happening in Canada. In a suit filed February 2009, the gay/lesbian/bisexual lobby complains about inequality!

As you may be aware, the homosexual movement has made me one of its prime targets. It has sold academia on the notion that “Your sexuality is so important that it is the ‘core’ of who you are. Therefore, everyone should be supported — as a Constitutional right — in his choice of sexual activities.” The U.S. Supreme Court has bought into this notion. Consequently, not only do I have great difficulty publishing in scientific journals, but I am often criticized in scientific journals as well as on the Internet.

Some of these criticisms have consequences. I have lost expert witnessing placements and speaking engagements because of these lies. Indeed, those supposedly on ‘our side’ often attack me with the same lies and exaggerations, even though they were perpetrated by homosexuals in the first place.

Today I am pleased to share with you a significant victory!

Backdrop

Last year, while reviewing the literature on homosexual parents, I came across a Ph.D. dissertation called Gay And Heterosexual Fathers: A Comparative Analysis Of Child Behavior And Well-Being. It was issued by Capella University, one of the largest degree-granting institutions on the web. All doctoral dissertations are supposed to meet the high standards of having a critical committee of learned scholars examine, correct, and eventually endorse the degree candidate’s research effort. So I was aghast to read the following in the August 2005 dissertation:

“Paul Cameron, an opponent of gay fatherhood, was not only denounced by the American Sociological Association, but he was also expelled from the American Psychological Association for willfully misrepresenting research on the punitive effects of gay male parenting on children. Despite the psychological community’s condemnation of Cameron’s unethical practices, numerous publications and court proceedings have continued to rely upon his research (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001).” (page 42)

“Personal and political motivations have influenced the research on gay and lesbian parents as well. Some of the research in gay and lesbian studies does not use careful, respectable research practices. One example is research by Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron was expelled from both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association for willfully misrepresenting research on gay and lesbian parents. However, it is unlikely that the vast majority of misrepresentations in research on gay and lesbian parenting are intentional.” (page 96)

The Correction

Now, in 2009, an amended version of this dissertation has been issued. After each of the preceding paragraphs is the statement:

“[For a correction of errors in this paragraph, please see page 119]”

On page 119, the following correction has been added:

“Dr. Paul Cameron was not expelled from the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological, nor is there any evidence that he ‘willfully misrepresented research.’ Toby Canning and his dissertation committee (Malcolm Gray, Bob Jacobs, Cyd Strickland, and Thomas Vail) sincerely regret these inaccuracies. We acknowledge that Dr. Cameron’s extensive research on homosexuality and homosexual parents (e.g., 38 articles listed on PubMed) appears in peer-reviewed journals.” (Page 119)

When I found the original statements, I knew that if they were not retracted, they would be used by the homosexual movement against me. I also knew that if they were retracted, I would be able to point to a difficult but vindicating decision by the dissertation committee, the administrators and scholars associated with Capella University, along with the administrators and scholars from the University of Michigan-associated institution that hosts (and profits from) all Ph.D. dissertations in the United States.

The August 2005 dissertation came to my attention in January of 2008. It brought excessive propaganda into a scholarly publication, but by being approved without correction, had a stamp of ‘academic truth.’ I decided to appeal to the author and his committee as representatives of fairness and truth. I wrote to him after we spoke by phone:

“Thank you for your phone call and your promise to retract and correct the false statements about me and my work in your dissertation. I believe you have chosen unreliable sources on which to base your statements. In addition, I conclude that you have been poorly served by your dissertation committee, which should have given you better guidance in the choice and use of scholarship.

“Unfortunately, each of the statements about me which you published and continue to publish on the world-wide web, contains demonstrable untruths (copied above):

1) “It is true that in the interests of children I oppose gay fatherhood. It is also true that ‘numerous publications and court proceedings have continued to rely upon his research’ — why shouldn’t they? After all, they are all published in peer-reviewed journals.

“The following statements are untrue. Specifically:
2) I was not ‘expelled from the American Psychological Association.’ As you can see from our website (). Having no APA charges against me, 26 years ago, on November 7, 1982, I resigned and got a letter of acknowledgement from the President of the APA November 29, 1982. My letter explaining my reasons for my resignation, as requested by the APA President, was published in the Monitor in March 1983. My letter said that I believed the APA had abandoned its scientific stance and become an advocate for abortion and gay rights. Following the publication of this letter, the APA informed me I had been dropped from membership while under charges. I have since been asked at least three times to rejoin.

3) “I was not ‘expelled’ from the APA for ‘willfully misrepresenting research on the punitive effects of gay male parenting on children.’ Indeed, the first professional journal article I published on homosexual parenting was in Adolescence in 1996. Indeed, I have published a number of articles on this topic, all in peer-reviewed journals.

4) “The phrase ‘willfully misrepresenting’ [emphasis added] assumes an insight into my motives without offering evidence to support such a conclusion. I have yet to read anywhere a detailed analysis of my studies or evidence of their inaccuracy; much less one that proves I knowingly misrepresented or distorted the data or its meaning.

“Disagreements over the interpretation of raw data are inevitable in the social sciences. The only proper response to scholars whose conclusions disagree with your own is to question either their methodology or their conclusions. In fact, people with different perspectives often draw opposite conclusions from the same data. Those who disagree with the findings of a contrary study should respond by attacking the data or its use. Ad hominem attacks — allegations of base motives — have no place in scholarly discourse. I am the frequent victim of such attacks, particularly on the Internet. However, I don’t expect to find them in university dissertations.

5) “I am not a sociologist and have never been a member of the American Sociological Association. Here you can see how unreliable your sources are. Again, your dissertation committee (Malcolm Gray, Bob Jacobs, Cyd Strickland, and Thomas Vail) seems to have served you poorly. The writing of a dissertation is the final step in a candidate’s preparation to join the larger community of scholars. That preparation should include instruction in the severe scrutiny of sources.

6) “The ASA actions against me did not and could not have occurred for ‘willfully misrepresenting research on gay and lesbian parents.’ The criticisms of me by the ASA and its committees commenced in 1985 and ended in 1987. The attacks were ad hominem (you can find them on the Internet), and never mentioned my research on ‘gay and lesbian parents.’

“You must understand that my livelihood depends on my reputation as an authority on these matters. I have published over 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals and three books. When my competence and integrity are attacked in gay blogs, the source impugns their veracity and I try to ignore the distortions and untruths. However, when some of the same misinformation appears in a scholarly publication, I can’t let the matter pass.

“The question remains: ‘How do we fix this problem?’ Since in our telephone conversations you have indicated your willingness to correct these errors, I am reluctant to cause you excessive embarrassment. However, I believe a retraction of these false statements in order. Let me suggest the following: that both offending passages be followed by a bracketed statement directing the reader to a special note at the end of the volume.

“I believe some such statement, placed as I suggest, would retract what I consider to be a series of statements in a scholarly work significantly damaging to my professional career.”

Dr. Canning’s Reply

“I sincerely appreciate how thoughtfully you have addressed this issue with me. I am agreeable to your recommended solution and will attempt to implement it verbatim. Furthermore, I have contacted the publisher and have been informed that they are willing to publish the retraction, but that Capella needs to take some steps in order to do so. I am in the process of preparing the changes and once I have received approval from Capella I will forward the amended document to you as well.

“In defense of my dissertation committee, I think this was a case of oversight, rather than an endorsement of my writings regarding you. In fact, I expect that each one of my committee members will endorse the retraction you have suggested. I can only ask that if you need to discuss this situation with others, that you place the blame on me.

“Back in 2004 and 2005 when I was writing my dissertation, I had attempted to read everything I could get my hands on regarding gay and lesbian parenting. I am sorry that I bought into those few allegations against you without calling you and allowing you to present your side of the story. I should have remembered that this is a very controversial topic and that biases run deep in controversial topics. My error further illustrates the need for impartiality in conducting research in areas like these.

“I would like to end this letter with my apology to you. I am sorry for any hurt I have caused you or your family, and I sincerely apologize for how I interpreted those unsubstantiated statements against you without first contacting you to get your side of the story. I did not get into this profession to hurt people, but rather to help them. It is always disappointing to me when my own imperfection gets in the way of helping others.

“Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE”

Conclusion

I must give these academics and their institutions credit. They did what was right and just, and got the correction added almost a year to the day I discovered their defamation.

Cameron stated that he had been chosen by the editors of a number of scientific journals (including the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and Psychological Reports) to review papers submitted to these journals. In this capacity, he participates in “gate-keeping” — that is, determining what studies on homosexuality are recognized as genuine science and worthy of publication.

Besides his work on homosexuality, Cameron has engaged in other forms of research. He was the first scientist, in 1967, to document the harm of second-hand tobacco smoke. His follow-on research and public statements helped to shape the relatively smoke-free environment characteristic of our current environment.

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic Cameron campaigned to keep “gay blood” out of the blood bank and to permit individuals to self-donate their own blood. Both of these policies were opposed by the CDC and the American Association of Blood Banks. Eventually, working with Rep. William Dannemeyer, Cameron helped to ensure in 1985 that gays were barred from donating blood. And around the same time, the American Association of Blood Banks agreed to permit self-donation.

Of this achievement Cameron says: “I played a role in saving thousands of additional lives that might have been lost to the notion that homosexual blood was just as infection-free as anybody else’s.”

February 13, 2006. Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of Family Research Institute – a Colorado-based think tank – said today that in his debate with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family over gay rights, he has received support from pro-family activists nationwide.

“This past weekend, after I spoke to a pro-family convention, a number of activists told me how much they appreciated my stance. In addition, people have called me at my office to say that they agree with my criticisms of Dr. Dobson’s position on gay rights and hope he will change his mind.”

Cameron added fuel to the fire by further challenging the drift of Focus on the Family, which, he says, has undermined the efforts of pro-family groups to end a string of victories by the gay-rights movement.

In attacking Cameron’s assertion that the head of Focus on the Family has endorsed gay rights, Dobson, said the following in his defense:

“Let me stop the reading right now and tell you what I did say. That’s a complete fabrication. What I said is that I am in favor of gay rights in the sense that homosexuals should not be treated unfairly under the law. They should not be deprived of a job or the right to buy a house. They are governed by the same laws that everyone else is. But I have never in any context said that I was in favor of same-sex partners being considered married or entitled to the same benefits that are reserved for the traditional family – Never!”

Cameron said he accepts the likelihood that Dobson believes that statement. However, the researcher maintained the Colorado bill proposed by Sen. Mitchell — legislation that Dobson has endorsed — “grants homosexual couples some of the benefits currently reserved for married couples and their families.”

To prove this point, he cited the Rocky Mountain News, which quoted Senator Mitchell himself as saying “it doesn’t matter how long these partners have known each other. The bill does not, however, apply to couples who are eligible to marry.” Cameron noted that this provision — which excludes cohabiting heterosexuals — indicates that those receiving privileges under the new bill would be governed by a special law, not, as Dr. Dobson put it, “the same laws that everyone else is [governed by].”

“In practical terms,” Cameron said, “the refusal to permit cohabiting heterosexuals to take advantage of the same benefits violates Dobson’s stated principle. Needy cohabiting homosexuals would be eligible for benefits under the Mitchell bill. Needy cohabiting heterosexuals would remain needy.”

“Apparently Dr. Dobson doesn’t understand the law,” Cameron continued. “Under federal civil rights legislation, it is illegal to discriminate in the area of jobs and housing on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and other specified criteria. Homosexuals are not currently protected under these laws. For years, gay rights activists have been lobbying Congress to include homosexuals on the list of protected classes. Pro-family forces have rightfully opposed such an inclusion. Dr. Dobson’s statement gives aid and comfort to the homosexual movement.”

As for Dobson’s declaration that homosexuals should have a “right” to employment, Cameron said: “Scientific studies have found that gays bring certain liabilities into the job market”:

* Those who engage in homosexual are more apt to miss work, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
* Homosexuals are forbidden to donate blood to blood banks, indicating that they are more likely to harbor infectious diseases.
* Contrary to gay mythology, homosexuals are more likely to be sexual predators, as the Catholic Church discovered. (After paying billions of dollars to settle lawsuits, the Catholic hierarchy has banned the ordination of homosexuals.)

Cameron asked the question: “How long can Dr. Dobson maintain the illusion that he has not endorsed special rights for homosexuals?” The Denver Post reported on the 8th that:

“Supporters of a proposal to legalize domestic partnerships are taking aim at a competing bill that one strategist called a ‘political ploy masquerading as a compromise’ to benefits for same-sex couples.”

Cameron concluded by saying: “Senator Mitchell, The Denver Post, the gay-rights movement — all understand the special pleading of this bill. And pro-family activists around the country are beginning awaken to the reality that the leadership of Focus on the Family has — for some time and in a variety of ways — been leading the pro-family in a slow but steady retreat.”