From East to Left Coast, God's Definition of Marriage Under Siege

We were talking about Cameron.

You insinuated the legitimacy of organizations who cite Cameron…i.e. NARTH et al who happen to be Christian related in therapy or politics. Keep up.

In fact, the phenomena even has a name: "volunteer error".

Thank you for agreeing that Bailey/Pillard is a biased discredited study. Glad to see YOU not defending the discredited Shidlo and Schroeder volunteer studies anymore. You are a hypocrite; you know that don't you?

That would be the one. And we've been over his reliability before, and unless you've come up with some new information that anything he says about Cameron is incorrect...

All your biased homosexual hack says is his methodology isn’t by the book BUT that doesn’t prove his study wrong does it? If all studies are to be held to the same standard…then you lose the discredited Bailey/Pillard, Hooker and Kinsey studies…as well as many others. The ONLY thing that proves his data and interpretations wrong is a study debunking his findings. So where is it? SHOW ME THE STUDY!

Without proper methodology, all results are invalid: …

SEE ABOVE..tit for tat

Now, about the Nebraska Psycological Association, the American Sociological Association

Lacky APA wannabes trying to finish the APA which hunts are irrelevant to proving his studies to be wrong.

and the court findings that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"?

You mean the “opinion” of a “judge” who buys into the falsehood that you’re not a homosexual if you commit “homosexual pedophilia”?

”Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals”

What part of Freund/Watson 1992’s DATA don’t you understand? Pedophilia is its own gender? That’s hysterical! The pathology is same-sex attraction. Obviously a dupe liberal judge buying into the APA propaganda that same-sex attraction isn’t its own pathology and some how not related to other paraphilic disorders is naive at best and politically motivated in reality. This objective point is obvious to those with common sense, if you’re a man and you sodomize boys…you be gay; just ask the alter boys.

Boy, you're all over the map, ain'tcha?

Thank you for agreeing that Bailey/Pillard is a biased discredited study.

I said no such thing. I said all volunteer studies are subject to "volunteer error", and you're not going to find a person with an ounce of brains who denies that. It does not invalidate them, else they would not be done. In fact, here's a challenge to you: "reparative therapy never works" -- disprove that statement without use information given by volunteers.

All your biased homosexual hack says is his methodology isn’t by the book BUT that doesn’t prove his study wrong does it?

Actually, it does. Methodology in science is slightly more important than the proper use of the word "its" in a Free Republic post. Actually, "methodology" is the #1 thing attacked when disrediting studies, so I'm not even sure what it is you think you want.

And, oh, Clint... you'll find very, very few times when I ever cite any study, especially in regards to homosexuality. And when I do, it's in direct response to someone else's misuse of that self-same study, or demonstration of the mutability of the definition of "homosexual".

This objective point is obvious to those with common sense

And as soon as you demonstrate some, I'll take you seriously.

Boy, you're all over the map, ain'tcha?

What gave you that idea?

I said no such thing.

You don’t have to. Bailey/Pillard used a biased sample unrepresentative of the population ergo invalid, ergo Hooker invalid, ergo Kinsey invalid. Do you see a pattern here yet Josh? Garbage in garbage out. Biases of homosexual “psychologists/psychiatrists” are suspect when researching their own pathology and self-invalidating.

I said all volunteer studies are subject to "volunteer error", and you're not going to find a person with an ounce of brains who denies that.

Calm down Josh, I can see you vibrating and flailing while you wrote this.

It does not invalidate them, else they would not be done.

Biased samples don’t invalidate a volunteer study? Hehehe… A volunteer study’s validity completely depends on how the volunteers are recruited; Bailey recognized his error and fixed it using the registry studies.

In fact, here's a challenge to you: "reparative therapy never works" -- disprove that statement without use information given by volunteers.

Totally irrelevant but OK, have you ever heard of surveying?

This for the hard of hearing. HEREK IS A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T ATTACK THE METHODOLGY USED FOR THE PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT HIS PATHOLOGY… Hooker, Kinsey, LeVay, Bailey/Pillard, Jenny, et al.

You are a simply a hypocrite that won’t apply the same standards of methodology to other studies that you depend on to demean Cameron. You are no different than Herek.

Boy, you're all over the map, ain'tcha?
What gave you that idea?

Reading your posts, maybe?

Bailey/Pillard used a biased sample unrepresentative of the population ergo invalid, ergo Hooker invalid, ergo Kinsey invalid.

It's plain that you rely on propaganda and lack even the first clue about science. Why continue to argue this? Last time you were arguing that Bailey/Pillard was useless because MZ twins had to have 100% concordance, and then it's "volunteer errors" and failing in that, it's "unrepresentative samples". You don't know what you're talking about.

It does not invalidate them, else they would not be done.
Biased samples don’t invalidate a volunteer study? Hehehe… A volunteer study’s validity completely depends on how the volunteers are recruited; Bailey recognized his error and fixed it using the registry studies.

Who are you? Donahue? I said what I said and I'm not going to argue against your lack of understanding.

In fact, here's a challenge to you: "reparative therapy never works" -- disprove that statement without use information given by volunteers.
Totally irrelevant but OK, have you ever heard of surveying?

Yep. So... "prove it". Show me the survey. Show me the organization that has the resources to conduct such a survey. NARTH, et al, claim that reparative therapy works - show me the proof on how successful it is.

HEREK IS A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T ATTACK THE METHODOLGY USED FOR THE PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT HIS PATHOLOGY

Big deal -- does that make him wrong in what he says about Cameron? Hell, you sit here defending Cameron's studies, denying or minimizing their weaknesses, and attempt to discredit studies you don't agree with. Hello, pot, you're black.

You are a simply a hypocrite that won’t apply the same standards of methodology to other studies that you depend on to demean Cameron.

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? I don't see any reason to defend or disparage studies I don't use.

Ummm… Last time you claimed MZ twins weren’t always identical…and they absolutely are lest any environmental influences. You were claiming MZ twins with a genetic marker for a defect were some how comparable to a behavior THAT HAS NO GENETIC MARKER. What are you talking about? Stick to the subject.

and then it's "volunteer errors" and failing in that, it's "unrepresentative samples". You don't know what you're talking about.

Volunteer error or bias MEANS unrepresentative samples! If the opinions of volunteers are different from those of the population they are supposed to represent then the research is worthless. I claimed Bailey discredited his own study because of the biased sample, cited it and you panned it with some garbage excuse of commercialism.

Who are you? Donahue? I said what I said and I'm not going to argue against your lack of understanding.

What ever Josh…I’m not the homosexual trying to justify his own behavioral choices, you keep on trucking.

What does that have to do with proving to you information can be found without the use of volunteers? Too bad if it’s expensive, the fact still remains and BTW Cameron did a very successful study from a very large survey. Stop changing the subject.

Big deal -- does that make him wrong in what he says about Cameron?

NO…but it doesn’t make Cameron wrong either. There are many studies with methodology errors still accepted by the general “medical” community at large and the only way to make them WRONG is to debunk them…that’s all I’ve claimed from the very beginning.

Hell, you sit here defending Cameron's studies, denying or minimizing their weaknesses, and ~~attempt to~~ successfully discredit studies you don't agree with. Hello, pot, you're black.

I’m glad to finally see you’re coming around to my ORIGINAL point…thank you. DEBUNKING is the only way to make Cameron wrong. Now just get over it.

Last time you claimed MZ twins weren’t always identical

Interestingly, I did quote a study that said something like that: It turns out that identical twins who differ for a single genetic trait are quite common.

and they absolutely are lest any environmental influences.

Which is also something I said, and you seemed to have some sort of problem with at the time. I'm still waiting for you to show any genetic condition having 100% concordance rates in MZ twins, BTW. These particular posts start right about here, if you need to refresh on who said what.

Volunteer error or bias MEANS unrepresentative samples!

Your ignorance is showing. No, in fact, they don't.

"Volunteer error" is an error caused by the fact that some people had a chance to come forward with their opinions; people with something to say on the subject responded to a greater degree than those that didn't.

An "unrepresentative sample" is asking five people what they had for breakfast and extrapolating those percentages to the entire population.

And frankly, I'm not surprised your selective memory missed the whole "commercially-driven source" gibe. Which, BTW, is another statement you made in the previous argument that I'm still waiting for you to back up.

What does that have to do with proving to you information can be found without the use of volunteers?

Because you can't.

Too bad if it’s expensive

Tell that to the people who aren't paying for it, but could use the information.

Cameron did a very successful study from a very large survey

Define "successful".

NO…but it doesn’t make Cameron wrong either.

Either Herek's bias tainted his analysis of Cameron, rendering it false and useless, or it's accurate and Cameron is false and useless. Do you see another option here? I don't.

There are many studies with methodology errors still accepted by the general “medical” community at large and the only way to make them WRONG is to debunk them

Finally, you said something correct! Partially. Most, if not all, studies have some sort of weakness methodoligically -- "human nature" comes into play. Efforts can be made to minimize those errors, but there'll always be a "margin of error".

Most studies that are still used are "Wrong" because their results are over-stated; Cameron's forté, actually. Bailey-Pillard found what they found -- unless they've falsified their data, that's what they found. It would be correct to say their data supports the idea of a genetic cause of homosexuality; it would be "wrong" to say their data proves it. That's where "activists and amateurs" come into play -- they're always overstating study results. Some make a career of it, including anyone who makes absolute claims about homosexuals or homosexuality.

Oh, and "successfully" discredting a study requires knowing what you're talking about. You don't, re: "volunteer error" and "unrepresentative sample".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.