Replies

This isn't about Cameron, or Reisman, much as you'd like it to be. It not about you, or me. It's about the tremendous mosaic of research work that had to be patched together in order to illustrate that the APA decision to normalize homosexuality was based on politics, not science.

It's about Masters & Johnson. It's about Bell & Weinberg, senior research fellows at the Kinsey Institute, who stated their sympathy for the homosexual rights agenda in the foreword to their book -- just before they started ripping your position to shreds with their research data. It's about Gebhard & Johnson, who laboriously reviewed all of the Kinsey data and republished the portion that was methodologically sound.

It's about Spitzer, the Columbia psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the DSM in 1973 -- a quarter-century before he interviewed dozens of ex-homosexuals, and reached the conclusion that homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic after all. With friends like these, you don't need enemies.

It's about Bieber, Abel, Siedman & Rieder, Bergler, Jay & Young, Remafedi, Saghir & Robins, Schofield, Marshall, McWhirter & Mattison, Wassermann, Freund, Bradford, O'Carroll, Swigert, Harlow, Bachman, Forman, Lipscomb, and all the others whose credibility you can't touch. Each one of them is another brick in the wall of scientific research data that has absolutely nothing to do with either Cameron or Reisman,

I've never relied on any research by Cameron. But in each and every one of your posts, there's your Standard Issue Response #1 cut-and-pasted from your queer resources directory website:

disgraced researcher and notorious prevaricator Cameron

THIS ISN't ABOUT CAMERON.

It's about the tremendous mosaic of research results that he started to compile from the work of dozens of other licensed mental health professionals. All of which you're trying to dismiss with a wave of your hand and a chant: disgraced researcher and notorious prevaricator Cameron.

You have a few holes in your mosaic.

Quite a few.

You still haven't addressed your mish-mash nondefinition of homosexuality.

I suspect madg's hang-up with Cameron is that you've done the exact same thing -- you've taken amalgam of data, which may or may not be accurate for the circumstances in which it was gathered, and applied it however it would best justify your position.

Bell & Weinberg, for example, was a study of volunteers, not a random sample, gathered from sex-clubs, bars, bathouses, and public-parks frequented for sex in San Francisco in the 1970s. It's hardly applicable to "homosexuals" (still waiting on that definition) across America in the year 2003. It wasn't even applicable to homosexuals across America in the 1970s.

It's about Spitzer, ... reached the conclusion that homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic after all.

Spitzer, for example, found nothing of the sort. He found that SOME people can change from homosexual to straight. Considering that 66% of his subjects were referrals from ex-gay ministries and NARTH (who consider celibacy a success), it's even farther removed from certainty that it isn't "an immutable characteristic". Even Kinsey found that sexual-orientation can change spontaneously, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving with Spitzer.

It's very much about Cameron because you're doing the exact same thing that got him "disgraced" in the first, second, and third places.