I'm not aware of Bailey discrediting his own study, and I find no mention of it, via Google, by the usual suspects - Leadership U, Messiah.edu, FRC, Stonewall Revisted. I assume you mean the "twins study"... unless you're talking about his comment that there "must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins", which is a big DUH! and hardly a discrediting or debunking of anything other than the claims of amatuers and activists.
Sorry to rely on Herek, but he's the most promintent person to bother with Cameron; scientists without an agenda tend to ignore him altogether it seems. I'm sure you wouldn't find JoeBlow on a newsgroup to be any sort of convincing expert. (I wouldn't.)
Clinton didn't lie about "everything", but would you buy a used car from him or cite him as an expert on anything? So why continue to use Cameron? Because his lies are something you want to hear? They're still lies.
”Christian organizations” are not legitimate? Ever hear of the therapy part of psychotherapy???…why isn’t it any less legitimate than what the soft sciences contribute to the criteria of curing any other behavioral disorder? As long as therapy helps to have no anxiety, psychosocial functioning and a positive well-being is achieved, as set forth by the APA, what do you care how it’s achieved? Oh that’s right, it blows big holes in your APA crutch. Now what were those studies that DEBUNK any of NARTH’s, AFA’s, et al research studies?…maybe they’re with the studies that DEBUNK Cameron.
I'm not aware of Bailey discrediting his own study, and I find no mention of it, via Google, by the usual suspects -
"As commented in the book My Genes Made Me Do It!, it, the other registry study (Hershberger (1)), and the other volunteer studies, all contradict each other, and Bailey now believes that the volunteer studies have rather bad biases in them. "
I think this is pretty much self-discredited wouldn’t you? No “Christian” influence here, I don’t even see the usual suspect condemning the book.
Now perhaps you can show me how Dr Neil Whitehead, an eminently qualified research scientist with twenty-five years experience and Briar Whitehead a researcher and journalist are amatuers and activists. They are cited all over the place.
Sorry to rely on Herek,
You mean the politically active homosexual psychologist?
but he's the most promintent person to bother with Cameron; scientists without an agenda tend to ignore him altogether it seems.
Sorry, like I said, pinging someone for methodology is like the grammer police discrediting the substance of a post on FreeRepublic. Now show me the “study” that DEBUNKS, not discredits, any of Cameron’s studies or finds him a “liar” and you have a case. Still waiting!!!
I'm sure you wouldn't find JoeBlow on a newsgroup to be any sort of convincing expert. (I wouldn't.)
Was JoeBlow formerly a member in good standing in the APA, if so how’d he get there? Quitting the APA doesn’t constitute culpability unless you’re part of the witch-hunt, i.e. the homosexual activists at the APA, so in reality, JoeBlow isn’t remotely comparable to Paul Cameron is it?
Clinton didn't lie about "everything", but would you buy a used car from him or cite him as an expert on anything? So why continue to use Cameron? Because his lies are something you want to hear? They're still lies.
Prove the lies or shut up, SHOW ME THE STUDY!; your homosexual pathology is tainting your grasp on reality Josh, and your hysterical libel isn’t anything more than a pathetic attempt to justify your perversion.