Paul Cameron, Junk Science and Lies

The name of Paul Cameron has been going around the blogosphere lately, mostly because he and his son presented a poster at the Eastern Psychological Association towards the middle of March.  In that poster the Camerons makes a number of claims about the lives of gays and lesbians (or homosexuals as he calls us).  The problem with Cameron, however, is that he has been kicked out of a number of scientific academies for using bogus research policies.  That does not stop people like Peter LaBarbera from quoting these ‘studies.’  You can see he did this on April 5.  Gleefully LaBarbera reports that the lifespans of gays and lesbians is supposed to be 24 years shorter than straight people. 

The problem with Cameron and his ‘research’?  Well, for starters no one can legitimately call it research.  Paul Cameron gets most of his statistics from newspapers instead of doing proper sociological research–like doing his own surveys or interviews.  What is the problem with getting info from obituaries from gay newspapers and then using these ‘results’ to imply something else?  There is an excellent series of articles about Paul Cameron written by Dr. Herek.  One is specifically written about the use of obituaries. To summarize a bit of what Dr. Herek found (and what is really common sense if you think about it) is that not everyone who dies gets into a gay newspaper’s obituary.  Here are the reasons for why you would not see a gay or lesbian in the gay newspaper obituary notices:


  • gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community
  • gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation
  • gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn’t want their homosexuality to be known
  • gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn’t think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper
  • gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)
  • gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).

As Dr. Herek points out, to get a scientifically valid study out of gay and lesbian deaths, ALL must be counted.  However, what Cameron has done is taken what he found in newspapers and created a so-called study that found that the lifespan of homosexuals is shorter.  Former Sect. of Education William Bennett had this to say about Cameron’ study:

"Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years." New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4)

Anyway, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that there were good reasons for kicking Paul Cameron out of the American Psychological Association in 1983 for "violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists." In Oct. 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association "adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality." 

In 1985 the American Sociological Association "adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research." 

In 1986 the very same American Sociological Association "officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances."

Yet this does not stop people like Peter LaBarbera or other anti-gay activists from treating Paul Cameron as if he were a real researcher. 

You can find more information on Paul Cameron here.

 You can see Paul Cameron’s bio here.

Like other anti-gay activists, Paul Cameron started his own non-profit called the Family Research Institute here.  As you can see, the word ‘Research’ has been shown to be anything but (much like the Truth in Americans for Truth about Homosexuality).  Why some organization like the Eastern Psychological Association would harm its reputation by allowing junk science to be on a poster at their conference is beyond me. It is also clear from looking at a few of his ‘papers’ he hasn’t done anything new in years and years–he just keeps rehashing the same old crap.  For example, in a paper he self-published in 1999, he discusses the shortened lifespans of gays and lesbians.  His most recent ‘report’ is from April 5th of this year–Married Gays Die 24 years Younger.

He also discussed smokers in 1999.  And look what was self-published on April 3 of this year:  Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking.  I think it is hilarious that www. earnmedia said that Paul Cameron’s non-profit is a ‘think-tank’!  This is one non-profit that needs to be shut down…

 Here is a the picture from the FRI website:


You can also see another very good breakdown of Paul Cameron and his ‘scientific studies’ here, which is written by Balaji Ravichandran.

I’ve looked at their tax returns and it is shocking that they even brought in nearly $80,000 in contributions.  Of course, this also shows that he does not have very much public support for what he does, even though his ‘research’ is used endlessly by anti-gay activists. 

They also have a deficit of nearly $40,000 for 2006!  Of that $80,000 they brought in, nearly $60,000 was spent on salaries.  Nearly $13,000 was spent on travel.

They claim on their taxes to have completed a nationwide sexuality surevey [sic] and are in the process of reporting these findings.  This exact sentence (minus the spelling error) is found on their 2005 returns–doesn’t anyone in the government look at these forms?  They also claim to be using governmental databases.  I wonder what kind of ‘national survey’ the Cameron’s have done other than reading gay newspapers…

It is quite the family affair, as usual.  Paul Cameron pays himself about $30,000 (with benefits included).  Wife Virginia Cameron is the office manager and works 25 hours a week and gets paid nearly $18,000.  Son Kirk Cameron is the Vice Chairman (and statistical scientist–at least according to their taxes), works 15 hours a week and gets paid $13,000 while daughter Karyn Knapp as the Treasurer.  She works 4 hours a week and is unpaid. 

Anyway, so if you ever see the so-called research mentioned by Paul Cameron, automatically dismiss it as junk science written by a person who has been kicked out of numerous intellectual associations for ethics violations.  And automatically dismiss anyone who uses Cameron.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Paul Cameron, Junk Science and Lies

  1. Rob says:

    I was never in the crowd that thought Kirk was a hottie from his teen acting days, but its a shame to see him embarrassing himself this way.

  2. Narciblog says:

    This Kirk Cameron isn\’t the same as the actor Kirk Cameron, though he is a evangelical Christian fundamentalist as well.

  3. -- says:
    Actually, they did do their own national (in a sense) survey when they first started up:
    Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., & Forde, N. (1985). Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted diseases. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.
    You might want to think twice about mainstream mental health associations:

  4. Kevin says:

    O.K.  Let\’s just say that they did a real, scientific survey (however, your use of –in a sense–makes me think that they did not).  It was done in 1985, a full 27 years ago.  They are still using the \’information\’ they found back then.  This is not scientific.  No one would be able to get away with that now.  And besides, P. Cameron was kicked out of the Nebraska Psychological Association.

  5. -- says:

    FRI publishes many studies:
    You can also view their studies in PubMed. I said \’in a sense\’ in that it was national in a sense. The NPA is a mainstream mental health association, see link below.

  6. Kevin says:

    Hey!  Thanks for your comments.  I\’ve looked at the link from FRI.  I do have to wonder why all of these articles (almost every single one of them) is on gays and lesbians.  Your vision statement reads:
    …and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead discouraged and rejected at every level of our society.
    Now if I saw that there was an historian that loved, say, Stalin, and was writing about the glories of the Stalin era, I would be highly suspicious of anything that was written.  If the goal of FRI is to reject gays and lesbians, then any \’scientific\’ study that comes out of FRI must naturally be suspect.  That is the problem that FRI has.  Your research comes to the conclusions that you want it to have.  This really isn\’t scientific research (and I have published seven articles in peer-reviewed journals in Neuroscience, so I know what real, scientific literature is).  Would FRI ever find something good in their research on gays and lesbians?  The answer is clearly no.  Therefore it is biased, and biased science is not science.
    Maybe you can explain to me the obsession with all things gay and lesbian.  You claim to be a Research Institute for the family, but do you do research into children, or straight parents, or straight people at all?

  7. -- says:

    Bias does not negate science. If the science is flawed, than it\’s flawed. The \’why\’ could be the bias, but it has to be proved incorrect first (note: all social science is somewhat messy, but can you 1: show that the data does not support the conclusion in a reasonable way – or that the data is falsified – and 2: produce your own studies to counter it.) I suppose you think that mainstream mental health organizations aren\’t biases (though I\’m sure you\’ll find in their missions statements something \’to produce research which will aid us in helping gays, etc., they probably even have ethics laws against putting \’gays\’ in a negative light, see link below). Is your motive biased behing your research? Of course, but that won\’t necessarily negate the science.
    Paul Cameron was in fact the one who started studies on second-hand smoke. I\’m not, however, associated with FRI.

  8. -- says:

    ha, okay so in neuroscience maybe there\’s not so much tendancy to be biased, but my point is that in all social science, the author would have a belief in what he was doing, no one is just a \’passive observer\’.

  9. Kevin says:

    You can get biases in any scientific study, including neuroscience.  Let\’s say I really want my research to give a certain result–I can consciously not count certain cells, or ignore data and all of a sudden I am getting the results I really want. 
    An example of bad science?  It is well known that the Camerons have used obituaries from gay and lesbian newspapers and have used those numbers to make sweeping statements.  The problem?  Not all gays and lesbian deaths are listed in the gay newspapers.  So to say that 40% of all gay men die from AIDS (let\’s say) because that is what is shown in gay and lesbian newspapers is absolutely wrong.  Causes of death are sometimes not mentioned.  That is the problem with their junk science.  They WANT to show gays and lesbians in a bad light as shown from their pamphlet–How to Stop Gay Rights–which I have blogged about today.  Since that is what they WANT, that is what they will FIND.  You are correct about there being no passive observers, but if you are looking for specific results, that is exactly what you are going to find.  The Camerons themselves are responsible for the fact that no reputable scientist believes what they say.
    You can\’t really compare mainstream medical organizations and their missions to what Cameron does.  They are not doing research–they are performing services.  There is a difference. 
    For falsification of their research, see the Box Turtle Bulletin ( and also look at the numerous medical and psychological associations that have kicked out the Camerons for bad research. 

  10. -- says:

    The obituary study was a novel approach. It was published in Omega, as well as being presented at the EPA and publically commended by the EPA president. Are there any studies on ALL of \’gays\’? Of course not. And the causes are often mentioned, and when they do FRI categorizes them.
    Yes, mental health associations provide services, they tell people what they think they aught aught to know. See pdf document below on how they misrepresent science on this and other moral subjects.
    No one has \’kicked him out\’, he resgned from the APA, and organizations have \’dissacociated themselves with his work\’, but that\’s the price for not being \’politically correct\’, no?

  11. -- says: the way, what would you suggest to use in a study trying to gauge the lifespan of \’homosexuals\’, use the governemnt records of the deaths of married \’gays\’, perhaps? Too bad, FRI already did, and they were in the most accepting societies of the \’homosexual\’ lifestyle to date.

  12. Kevin says:

    By the EPA do you mean the Eastern Psychological Association?  If so, I want to see that commendation.  If he commended it, then he lied in an email that he sent to me.  So direct me to that because I want to read it.  And here is what Dr. Hineline, the President of the EPA had to say in a press release about Cameron\’s research (these are only excerpts but you can search my blog to read the entire thing):
    Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron have posted for circulationa controversial and lengthy  manuscript that purports, via the tagline atthe bottom each page, to be the account of a presentation at the March2007 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Assocition.  The title of thatmanuscript, as well as its main emphasis, focuses upon an issue that wasnot present in the title nor was it in the supporting materials that weresubmitted by the Camerons for a poster presentation at EPA.
    …There was nothing in the materials submitted by the author for review byEPA that indicated that the work could, or would, be informative withrespect to the longevity of homosexuals.
    So you tell me where Dr. Hineline commended this research–and I will confirm it with him by email. 
    Are you sure you don\’t work for the FRI?  You sound way too excited about their scandalized research to just be an interested observer.
    I totally agree with you about using obituaries as a novel method.  Not a sound scientific method, but certainly novel.   And cherry-picking of statistics isn\’t scientific either.  Why do you think that numerous scientific committees have rejected Paul and Kirk Cameron\’s material?  They are on a witchhunt, and that is what hurts them the most.  I\’ve seen their pamphlet on how to stop gay rights.  Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe or trust anything that is found regarding gays and lesbians by the Camerons and their Family Research Institute?  Who would believe a Nazi \’research\’ paper that shows that Jews are dirty and running the world?  The answer, plain and simple, is a Nazi would believe it, but no one else. 
    If you don\’t work at the FRI (or if you aren\’t one of the Camerons) then do yourself a favor and actually get out and meet real gays and lesbians. You probably have some as your neighbors, since we are all over.  You\’ll find that we are just like everyone else. 

  13. -- says:

    "*Pietrzyk rails about our utilizing obituaries from gay journals and calls it "a methodology that would not pass an undergraduate statistics course."Response: Our methodology was good enough for the Eastern Psychological Assn convention in 1993. Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at Buffalo, chair of the session, publicly commended our novel approach and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the hazards of their ways. Further, it was good enough for the refereed scientific journal Omega in 1994, a journal specifically devoted to studies of death and dying. The U. Chicago study provides grist for FRI\’s mill as well. Note p. 305: (etc.)" —
    I live in New England, so I\’m not exactly sheltered in this area, but perhaps YOU should get out and meet some of THESE people:

  14. -- says:

    ..and I\’m not exactly sure what you mean by they\’re all over, you do know they make up less than around 3% of the population.

  15. Kevin says:

    I am very familiar with the Stephen Bennett Ministries.  I\’ve written about him and his ex-gay organization before.  Besides, I think that Alan Chambers is giving a more truthful story about what it really means to be ex-gay.
    So where is that quote by the president of the Eastern Psychological Association?  That is what you said, so I wouldn\’t mind seeing it.  The chair of a session is not the president of the organization. 
    And if you live in New England, why do you say "our" research and "our novel approach"?  Come on, if you are Stephen Bennett, or Paul Cameron or Kirk Cameron, you dond to be ashamed about that. 
    And about that 1994 article.  If I went through the obituaries in scientific journals, then it would appear the scientists live a long life (from the few obituaries I have seen in history journals).  That doesn\’t mean that ALL scientists live a long life.  Any more than looking at obituaries in gay newspapers have anything to do with ALL gays and lesbians. 

  16. -- says:

    I think Alan is just confused, any one who relies on \’reparative therapy\’ based on the philosophy of \’it takes on to know one\’, instead of simply making a decision to change for yourself and relying on Christ for strength, is bound to be.
    I don\’t have a quote, just that from FRI, I\’m sure if you look in the archives of the conventions you\’d see Cameron on the schedule, and if you really want a quote I\’m sure you could contact FRI, the chair of that session, etc. and get one.
    Please point out where I said \’our\’ for anything.
    And you\’re missing the scientific method. If you you were to go through obituaries and average them out, you would be getting a general idea. You would test that idea by replication, using the same method as well as others. FRI has done this.

  17. Kevin says:

    So you said the President of the EPA commended Paul Cameron\’s research.  Then it went to the chair of the session.  And now for some reason you are now directing me to something that Cameron wrote (as if I was supposed to take his word on that).  Anyway, I see that you missed the quotation mark at the beginning of your citation which explains why I thought your use of \’our\’ referred to yourself.  I see that it does not. 
    I can understand Cameron\’s use of obituaries.  But can you see that that is flawed?  What if two gay people died of heart attacks at the age of 35 and 45 and both were reported in a gay newspaper.  The conclusion you could come to based on those statistics is that gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40.  But what if 100 others died from various diseases or just old age that weren\’t reported in the obituaries of gay newspapers?  What would that do to the statement that \’gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40\’?  It would show that your conclusion is not valid.  This is the problem with Cameron\’s \’research.\’  He cherry-picked and came to a flawed conclusion.  That is why no one takes his conclusions seriously.  It is why no one can take his conclusions seriously.
    So why are you so interested in Cameron and his work?  What benefit is it to you personally to keep pushing his research?

  18. -- says:

    Using obituaries listed in \’gay\’ newspapers nationwide is hardly \’cherry picking\’. As soon as you decide to register every living \’gay\’ in the U.S. and begin to chronicle when they die, let me know, and I\’ll tell FRI they don\’t have to use obituaries from \’gay\’ newspapers anymore.

  19. Kevin says:

    "As soon as you decide to register every living \’gay\’ in the U.S. and begin to chronicle when they die, let me know, and I\’ll tell FRI they don\’t have to use obituaries from \’gay\’ newspapers anymore."
    Yes Sir!  Will do, Sir!  As soon as I can, Sir!  Can I include \’lesbian\’ in that list too?
    You have proven my point exactly–there are no lists of when gays and lesbians die.  Therefore any time someone like Cameron goes through some gay and lesbian newspapers from 20 years ago, takes out bits and pieces and then makes statements like he does, then they cannot be taken seriously.  He has cherry-picked his information because he wants to get a certain result.  And like magic, that is just what he did!  Surprise, surprise. 

  20. -- says:

    They update their obituary studies periodically, the last report they published using them was in \’02, though they\’ve been including updates in their newsletters. FRI doesn\’t take out \’bits and pieces\’, they use everything included in \’gay\’ newspapers. Cherry picking is when you select only certain parts of data. FRI didn\’t do that, they used the most reliable and novel way to get ages of \’gay\’ deaths since governments don\’t keep tally (though they also used records of how many \’gays\’ exist in each age group, as well as a few other widespread studies like one done by the CDC).
    Oh, wait, now that there\’s \’gay\’ marriage governments are actually starting to record their deaths…and voila, FRI\’s latest study.

  21. Kevin says:

    So subue–what is your part in the Family Research Institute? I see you name drop that group every time you leave a comment somewhere.  So are you Paul or Kirk?  I think your typekey information almost gives it away (You\’ll have to forgive me–I am an historian, so I like to dig up information when the need arises).  It is o.k. if you are either.  I just want to know who I am dealing with.  And since \’anon\’ never answered my question, maybe you will:
    –What if two gay people died of heart attacks at the age of 35 and 45 and both were reported in a gay newspaper.  The conclusion you could come to based on those statistics is that gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40.  But what if 100 others died from various diseases or just old age that weren\’t reported in the obituaries of gay newspapers?  What would that do to the statement that \’gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40\’? 
    I eagerly await your answer…

  22. -- says:

    I\’m not associated with FRI.
    I think your analogy is rather silly, since you\’re only using two obituary accounts. But if you really wanted to go with it, you\’d have to test it with replication, as well as use other methods. FRI has done this.

  23. Kevin says:

    So is \’anonymous\’ and \’subue\’ the same person? 
    My two examples are not silly–but let\’s make that 6000 obituaries that were listed, and one hundred thousand deaths that were not listed.  You would get the same distorted results.  I\’m sure you can see that.  If you can\’t then that shows you do not fundamentally understand the problem.  Bad results are just that–bad.  That is why the Camerons and their results are rarely being used, even in the anti-gay activists sites.  It has nothing to do with politics either. 
    So you aren\’t going to answer my question?  That\’s o.k.–not answering it gives me an answer just the same.

  24. -- says:

    What question (and no I\’m not associated with FRI).
    I think you\’re missing the concept of empiracle research, and the scientific method all-together. No, obituaries don\’t give accounts of every \’gay\’ on earth, but it gives a pretty good representation. I think \’bad\’ research is just that which doesn\’t praise \’gays\’ in the postmodern, twisted, propoganda-like way you expect us to.

  25. -- says:

    What question (and no I\’m not associated with FRI).
    I think you\’re missing the concept of empiracle research, and the scientific method all-together. No, obituaries don\’t give accounts of every \’gay\’ on earth, but it gives a pretty good representation. I think \’bad\’ research is just that which doesn\’t praise \’gays\’ in the postmodern, twisted, propoganda-like way you expect us to.

  26. -- says:

    Don\’t know why that double-posted, but change \’empiracle\’ to \’empirical\’.

  27. Kevin says:

    How do you know that statements made in the obituaries make a \’good representation\’?  I\’ve told you many times the glaringly obvious problems with this.  The Camerons have found that this is not acceptable research and now they are paying their price for their deliberate twisting of material.  No one takes them seriously, and even all the anti-gay groups have dropped them from listing their research.  I suggest you do the same.  They are discredited and have no hope of creating their new organization because no one would dare associate with them. 
    Here is my question again and please just answer it:
    What if two gay people died of heart attacks at the age of 35 and 45 and both were reported in a gay newspaper.  The conclusion you could come to based on those statistics is that gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40.  But what if 100 others died from various diseases or just old age that weren\’t reported in the obituaries of gay newspapers?  What would that do to the statement that \’gays are dying of heart attacks at the average age of 40\’? 

  28. -- says:

    Your analogy is moot. I would first collect more obituaries before making a statement.
    Yes, Cameron\’s science using obituaries has possible variables (holes that you can tyr to poke in it, though you can\’t necessarily prove those holes, only speculate) but so does any research. Considering governments don\’t keep record of deaths by \’sexuality\’, using obituaries from \’gay\’ newspapers was a pretty novel idea, not to mention they\’ve replicated their study using government records in their latest study.

  29. Kevin says:

    Moot?  Far from it.  Your refusal to answer tells me quite a bit.  Besides, it isn\’t totally my problem–so many other people have rejected the Camerons that to even discuss it as \’research\’ is really the moot point.  But no one is to blame but themselves.  They are out to prove a point, and they then collect some numbers and magically their point is proved.  That is not only unscientific, it is dangerous.  But the Cameron\’s begging for money to open a new foundation will be hurt by their obvious bias.  No one in their right mind would donate money to them, mostly because no one would dare use what came out of such a foundation.
    And yes I can prove that there are holes–you only refuse to hear or understand them.  Of course you must have a personal interest in the Cameron\’s studies, so that explains a bit.  Counting deaths in obituaries where recording of deaths is purely voluntary leads to obvious problems, which I have pointed out.  Now if every death was accounted for and every reason for the death was accounted for and if the sexual orientation of every person who died was accounted for, then that kind of data would tell us something.  I am not saying that projections can\’t be made from small samples, but when the tobacco industry funds a study that shows that smoking is not dangerous to your health, then that is like the Family Research Council funding a study that shows that gays and lesbians live shorter lives.  The two cannot be trusted.  The FRI is out to make sure that gays and lesbians have no rights in this country.  That is their mission.  So there is no big surprise when they come out with such \’findings.\’  I wouldn\’t expect anything else.
    And I know you keep stating that you are not associated with FRI, but a search of your name, subue, comes up with a Typekey profile and the name on that address is titled Cam\’s profile page.  It is highly suspicious that the Family Research Council is run by someone with the last name of Cameron.  Cam=Cameron?  If you are so proud about the Camerons and their research, then you shouldn\’t be so embarrassed by supporting their cause. 

  30. -- says:

    If you can prove there are holes, than please provide the study you did which supports you\’re speculations. FRI didn\’t pick deaths out of obituaries here and there, they used any and all obituaries that the editors included. Blame the editors, not Cameron. ..and you\’re still not referencing their latest study.
    Who says I\’m embarassed about supporting them? I\’m simply not associated with them. 🙂

  31. Matti says:

    I suppose if Subue finds it so unproblematic and "novel" an idea to use obituaries in the gay press to define the average lifespan of all gay men, he would be equally thrilled by the idea of using fashion magazines to study heterosexual women as a group. Never mind that only a fraction of all the women in the world ever read those magazines, they are representative of all women if you just wish hard enough. Cameron is making generalisations about homosexuality and homosexuals on the basis of a subculture in which only a fraction of all the homosexual people in the world ever take part. If a study based on material derived from a subculture appears to show X about individuals participating in that subculture, then wouldn\’t the rational reaction be to conclude that X tends to be true about individuals participating in that subculture, as opposed to jumping to the conclusion that X is true about every single person who shares some characteristic common to people participating in that subculture? The latter is exactly what Cameron\’s study is doing; it does not distinguish between homosexuality and gay culture. You don\’t have to take part in gay culture to be homosexual. There is a world of homosexual love and relationships outside the narrow confines of so-called gay culture, and to make generalisations about all homosexual individuals on the basis of that particular social clique is a transparent and cynical attempt at using bogus science as a propaganda weapon.I am not defined as a person merely by my sexuality and I certainly refuse to be defined as a person on the basis of a narrow subculture I don\’t even belong to.

  32. Kevin says:

    Hey Matti,
    I think that Subue is really one of the Camerons. 
    And thanks for your comments!

  33. -- says:

    I think you\’re flattering yourself if you think any of the Camerons would bother themselves with the musings of a lone \’gay\’ activist.  But I\’m sure you know that.

  34. Kevin says:

    Hey No Name,
    You might be right, but you might be wrong.   I don\’t know why you put gay in parentheses.  It appears you have a problem with real gay people?  Hhmm?  Besides, I don\’t write to flatter myself.  Someone named Subue has written on other blogs and they are all in defense of the Camerons.  He came to my blog and left many, many messages.  Oh, and maybe you could explain what you mean by \’lone activist.\’  Many people like myself are aware of the lies of Paul Cameron and his son.  I am certainly not the only one who writes about him.  His \’research\’ is junk science and no one in their right mind would use him.  Even some of the anti-gay activists shun him because of his horrible reputation.  But I\’m sure you know that.

  35. -- says:

    \’Gay\’ is as good as slang to me, unless you\’re listening to the Fairy Godmother sing her song in Cinderella, where it means "happy".  I certainly do not take the word seriously and I make a point of rarely if ever mentioning it.  Se la vie.

  36. magic mesh says:

    Awesome! Its truly remarkable article, I have got much clear
    idea concerning from this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s