Liar??! His studies may not have been orthodox, and many are...yet not demonized by the homosexual lobby within the APA, but that doesn’t prove his studies (especially ALL of his studies) are wrong does it? His studies are cited by many legitimate organizations and many other accepted studies. If he’s a liar then produce a study/studies that DEBUNK any of his studies.
The APA frequently cites Bailey/Pillard, a study discredited by Bailey himself, a study where there was no control group, a study where the sample was solicited volunteers from the gay community. You and the APA are hypocrites to support any study that uses poor methodology, let’s throw in the Hooker Study too, and then condemn Cameron for his methodology.
Now what was that study that debunks Cameron again, hmm???
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.