This is due to the fact that you refuse to accept any evidence as legitimate. For example, you claim that the evidence is "archaic" when the most frequently-cited source was published in 1978, and two of the more frequently-cited sources (the Dutch study and the Oxford longevity study) were published in 2001.
I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of Kinsey. There is a lot of his work that's next to useless. But later in his career, after he learned the proper methodology (his formal training was in zoology, after all), he produced very reliable results. As I've already pointed out at least twice, Gebhard & Johnson carefully sifted through all of Kinsey's work, separated the wheat from the chaff, and re-published the portion that was methodologically sound.
If you disagree with Cameron's interpretation of all these research results, then by all means, explain to us where he went astray. I went looking for the sources he cited during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend two years ago. I found about 70% of Cameron's sources, including Bell & Weinberg, Jay & Young, Gebhard & Johnson, and the International Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Interpersonal Violence and Pediatrics.
All of Cameron's interpretations of the data appeared to be perfectly legitimate to me. But if you can prove that he is distorting the research findings of others in the works I've cited, then thrall me with your acumen, Clarisse.
It should be pointed out that reaching any consensus about the exact number of homosexual men or women exhibiting this or that characteristic is not the aim of our study. The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators' samples as well as of our own precludes any generalizations about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted."Bell AP & Weinberg MS, Homosexualities, page 22