Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute recently sat down with anti-gay talk show host ‘Coach’ Dave Daubenmire to elaborate on his latest “findings” that gays in relationships face more severe health risks than single gays and heterosexuals.
Cameron said that he was mildly “pro-gayish” before he started studying the issue but “then I saw what they did and I thought, ‘boy this is something that is really not only disgusting but this probably has medical consequences.’”
He claimed that “partnered” gays “do nastier things” than “when they are just flirting from bathroom to park,” and as a result have higher rates of HIV infections.
Cameron, whose “research” has been used by numerous Religious Right groups and was cited recently in an essay promoted by RNC committeeman and Michigan Republican lawmaker Dave Agema, told the National Press Club today that around one in four gay men have sex with children “as part of their sexual repertoire.”
He asserted that “parents are very leery about having their children sleep over or have homosexuals’ children sleep over with their children, they just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Cameron also claimed that the adults in his study “who had reported [having] a homosexual parent…seemed to account for a disproportionate number of those who reported sex with their parents and sex with friends of their parents
Cameron’s bases his new report on a review of gay peoples’ obituaries, that is, those that have one; Cameron writes that “many gays are anonymous—having sex without ever exchanging names—so their obituaries are ‘missing.’ Lesbians are anomalous—seldom being given an obituary.”
Cameron goes on to say that gays and lesbians are “more frequently involved in criminality” and “are more apt to smoke, use drugs, drive recklessly and get infected by their sexual activities with a host of dangerous germs and experience various organ failures.”
He adds that a reference to pets in a gay person’s obituary is a sign of his or her “estrangement from humanity,” adding that 20% of gay men “reported having had sex with an animal.”
According to the crackpot study, it is even more likely that gay men have sex with children:
“Not only do GLBT fail to generate their replacements, their influence on the demographic is negative when the ~25% of gays who admit sex with boys and thereby influence many to adopt homosexuality is factored in,” Cameron writes, arguing that gays and lesbians “make a negative contribution to the demographic by inducing many boys to adopt homosexuality (and seriously harming many [especially boys’] lives).”
Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute appeared at the National Press Club today to unveil his new report, which claims that gays and lesbians who are married or in civil unions actually die younger than their uncoupled peers.
“The Supreme Court ought not to harm homosexuals by legitimating homosexual coupling,” Cameron said, “and the psychiatric community ought to pay attention to this enormous deficit of lifespan and reopen the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a mental disability or a disorder.”
He argued that homosexuality is a “mental pathology” much like drug abuse or cigarette smoking, because it “shortens lives” and “harms its participants and harms the demographic.”
Cameron suggested that President Obama, who recently announced his support for marriage equality, might be gay. He later maintained that “the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try,” warning that children might be “forced to at least once experience homosexual acts.”
Well, the timing is I think miserable for his reelection. I would have expected him, as you did, to wait until he was the new president and say, “Guess what? I’ve changed my mind,” or, “I’ve evolved.” But homosexuality is the one sin, or the one habit, that is 24/7. It is homosexuality all the time. And actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence.
Mark my words clearly; the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try. They will not rest until every one of our children at least gets to try, has the opportunity and maybe is forced to at least once experience homosexual acts. There is no retreating from that, they made it very clear earlier on—now they don’t take about it—but that’s what they want, they will not be happy until they get it, marriage is just a step along the way.
Cameron later said he “partially agreed” with a caller who said, “they gave blacks equal rights and that was a bad path and now look where we are, if I don’t feel like I want to hire a black man for my business I’m in all sorts of trouble and now it’s going to be some homo who is gonna have to get a job because I can’t do nothing about it.” Cameron claimed the push for LGBT equality “brings into question the civil rights mentality” because it created “special rights on the basis of certain characteristics,” calling gays and lesbians “mentally deranged” and transgender people “people that are really strange.” He went on to compare gays and lesbians to people who have a sexual attraction to “dirty socks” and said “we’re headed to a place where the weirder the people, the more rights they will obtain and the more normal the fewer rights you will have”:
Cameron told Schneider that “we almost need a second American Revolution” to defeat legislation like a bill in California that would limit ex-gay “reparative therapy,” which he warned would make the state take kids away from their parents:
But he went on to say that such “reparative therapy” does not work and instead advocated that homosexuality be made “illegal” in order “to protect our children”:
Cameron: Part of the problem with the Christian Church in the United States today is that’s it’s be psychiatricized or psychologilized [sic], we seem to think that it’s our job to be counselors or do something to help people change. The fact is that the Christian Church for 2000 years tried to and eventually got homosexuality to be made illegal, when you make it illegal a lot of people don’t get into it because it’s illegal, when you make it illegal a lot of people get out of it because it’s illegal, when you say ‘we don’t want to be unkind’—Hey, we have to protect our children! We have to have a future!
The Christian Church until just recently, just the last few years of time, said we must prevent homosexuality from corrupting our society, corrupting our kids, and so that’s the area where I think we ought to go. If you stake your efforts on trying to convert people who are into drinking heavily or drugging heavily or homosexuality you are going to fail by far most of the time. Some of them will come over but there is no known technique to take someone who is in a besetting sin like this and free them.
Schneider: But for the power of God.
Cameron: Yes but the Christian Church for almost 2000 years said we will protect the rest of society from these miscreants and we will be kind to those who come to us individually and say ‘help me blah blah blah’ and that’s fine. I hear Christian spokespersons saying things like ‘we must be kind to the homosexuals because we must get them to come to church and listen to us and maybe they’ll convert,’ good luck! Sometimes that happens but you’re really running a very bad bet and you’re going way outside of mainstream Christian history.
Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute knows what is to blame for Canada’s declining fertility rate…gay rights, of course! In the group’s March memo, the FRI claims that gay rights have contributed to the “decline” of birth rates in the West and is threatening the “future for society.” After quoting a gay publication from Vancouver, the group links gay rights to Canada’s low fertility rate: “Canada produces 1.6 children/woman. Its future is thus doomed. Onward gay rights!”
Like frogs in a kettle being slowly boiled to death, FRI frequently hears people — including those concerned about our cultural decline — suggest that the progress of gay rights is not worth a great deal of worry. After all, ‘the sky is not falling. The sun will always come up tomorrow.’ But no matter how ‘big’ or ‘small’ the crisis seems at the moment, the goal of proper social policy is to assure a future for society. As the birth rates of Western countries continue to fall, those who have supported gay rights seem oblivious to the contribution such ‘rights’ make to the decline. Even those who have ‘tolerated’ (or not vigorously opposed) gay rights do not seem to understand the implications. But now the sky is starting to fall. From Xtra, a gay magazine in Vancouver, comes this:
“the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm.” (10/20/11)
Canada produces 1.6 children/woman. Its future is thus doomed. Onward gay rights!
The "research" produced by FRI has been widely discredited by social scientists and earned the organization a designation as an anti-gay hate group from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but is nonetheless routninely cited by other anti-gay Religious Right organizations.
Yesterday, FRI released its latest "scholarly" investigation into how the education and entertainment industries are "disproportionately populated by homosexuals and are in the midst of boy-molesting scandals" ... which can all be traced back to the introduction of the birth control pill:
Universities have a preponderance of heterosexuals. But, the perhaps 8% or so of employees who practice homosexuality are responsible for the great bulk of the child molestations! Everyone knows that homosexuals go ‘where the boys are.’ Thus the Boy Scouts and Catholic Priest scandals. But the University and Hollywood scandals exhibit another rule — ‘where gays cluster, boys suffer.’
Everyone knows ‘the pill’ freed heterosexuals from social control — but it also (indirectly) freed those who practice homosexuality. Before the 1960’s, ‘everyone’ had to conform to a norm that guaranteed a future — each citizen was responsible to get married and produce children. This social milieu was self-reinforcing: ‘If I must be disciplined in my sex life, then everybody else should be as well!’ Thus the citizenry generally worked to suppress those with deviant sexual habits.
But that changed radically with the invention of ‘the pill.’ Shielded by the anonymity of modern life, the pill assured that those with heterosexual tastes could live their sex lives almost free from social discipline. Pregnancies would no longer reveal your liaisons, and no one knew whether you were childless by fate or choice. Good news for homosexuals, because if heterosexuals could ‘do whatever they wanted’ sexually, the notion of fairness inevitably pushed heterosexuals to agree with ‘why punish those with other harmless sexual tastes?’
Of course, ‘harmless’ is the operative word. Is homosexuality indeed harmless?
Evangelizing for homosexuality, the entertainment industry (joining the psychiatric professions) began to flood the media with the message that ‘homosexuality is different, yet harmless.’ Hollywood asserted that homosexual practitioners were just as stable, just as worthy of marriage, just as worthy of parenthood, etc. The combination of these two new realities — the pill and Hollywood promotion of homosexuality — is the key to understanding where we are today.