If you want the quintessential fact why the Southern Poverty Law Center is correct in calling out certain religious right organizations for their anti-gay bias, check out this portion of an interview between members of two of these groups - Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth and Martha Kleder of the Concerned Women for America:
Transcript:
Kleder: One of the things I’ve also noticed is that the SPLC seems to be riled by the fact . . . uh . . . if they don’t particularly like your source that you document then you must be a hate group.
LaBarbera: Paul Cameron.
Kleder: Yeah.
LaBarbera: They say if you cite Paul Cameron, then you are a hater. I mean that’s ridiculous. You know there is a researcher who just came out and found that Paul Cameron’s work on the greater likelihood of homosexual adoptive parents to have . . . for the child to emerge as a homosexual. He confirmed Cameron’s thesis. You don’t have to agree with everything Paul Cameron ever did but how proposterous to say that citing a researcher . . Paul Cameron’s work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. What they’ve done, Martha is set up these criteria and then you violate them, they call you a hate group, and then they have their little echo chamber on the left which reports their charge. And of course the media, which really doesn’t like us anyway. The media is very pro-gay, they cite us and so it begins to take a life of its own.
One of the main reasons why religious right groups (i.e. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, The Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc.) have been profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups is because of their repeated citings of the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. They use his work to spread propaganda about lgbts.
Cameron is a researcher who has made a name for himself by creating studies designed to demonize the lgbt community. These studies for the most part have been published in “vanity” or “pay-for-publish” journals and they are not “peer-reviewed” in the normal sense. No “peer” who objects to Cameron’s work has the right to remove it from the journal.
He has also been discredited and censured by many group and individuals on the left, the right, and in the middle due to his bad research techniques. Several of his studies have been criticized for such errors as having small sample sizes, showing an anti-gay bias in interviews, and not having enough responses to establish a suitable analysis.
Let’s take a quick look at his history:
“Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” – Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rights ordinance, Lincoln Star May 8, 1982
The story was discovered to be a hoax and Cameron was called out in the local newspaper-
“A leading opponent of the proposed Lincoln Human Rights Amendment spreads rumors of an alleged vicious incident calculated to damage the proposal’s chances at the polls. When asked about it, he admits the rumor was without foundation. He refused to say from whom he heard the rumor. Nonetheless, he still insists it ‘could be true’, even though responsible authorities in the city say there was not a shred of evidence such an incident ever took place. The seed is planted, to the contrary.” – Editorial. Lincoln Star (May 10, 1982), as quoted by Brown, Robert D.; Cole, James K. Letter to the Editor, Nebraska Medical Journal 70, no. 11 (November 1985)
. Cameron has also had numerous condemnations rained down on him by the medical community:
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” – Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in letter written to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists on August 21, 1984
“Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – American Psychological Association, 1983
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” – American Sociological Association, 1985
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. – Canadian Psychological Association, 1996
And while we are at it, let’s not forget those on the right who dismiss Cameron’s work:
“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.” – former Ronald Regan Cabinet member William Bennett criticizing Cameron’s “gay lifespan study.” – New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4)
This article has been removed due to the inaccuracies surrounding the research of Paul Cameron. – A posting on the webpage of Ex-gay group Exodus International
And if that’s not enough to convince you of Cameron’s lack of credibility, check out various comments he has made regarding the lgbt community:
“What homosexuals do is so incredibly stupid, so patently absurd and antibiological, that only a foolish society would take their whimpering about ‘equal rights with heterosexuality’ seriously . . . Are we supposed to feel so sorry for them that we join them in the march to the cemetery?” – Paul Cameron, The Advocate, October 29, 1985
“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” – Mark E. Pietrzyk, New Republic, October 3, 1994
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get – and that is what homosexuality seems to be — then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.” - Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999
Cameron is the religious right’s dirty little secret. Many of the organizations named as anti-gay hate groups by the SPLC have used Cameron’s studies even though they are aware of his dubious history of condemnations.
However, many of them won’t admit to this fact.That is except for Peter LaBarbera. And what makes it worse is that LaBarbera is trying to justify work he knows has credibility problems.
And by the way, LaBarbera’s claim that another researcher proved Cameron’s thesis about children in same-sex households is also incorrect. LaBarbera failed to mention that the researcher, Walter Schumm, used the same bad methodology Cameron used to come to his original thesis:
Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books! That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids.
But here is the important thing – with Cameron’s credibility problem, if he were “publishing studies” about the African-American community, Jewish community, or women, then he and those who freely cite his work would be thought of as either racist, anti-Semitic, or gender biased.
So what’s the difference between Cameron’s work impugning any of these groups and what he is doing to the lgbt community? Why shouldn’t be he and those who use his work be thought of as “haters” in spite of the fact that they can hide their lies behind the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality?
At any rate, the usage of Cameron’s work certainly does put a monkeywrench into religious rights claims that they are being “targeted” by the SPLC because of their “Judeo-Christian” beliefs.
I never knew that freely citing research known to be sloppy and inaccurate was a tenet of “Judeo-Christian” beliefs.
Related posts:
Homophobic ‘researcher’ Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory
More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour
Hat tip to Kyle Mantyla of People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch , Box Turtle Bulletin, and Dr. Gregory Herek.
Alvin McEwen is the blogmaster of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. In addition, he is also a contributor to Truthwinsout.org, Pam’s House Blend,and the Huffington Post.
IP/10/252
Brussels, 9 th March 2010
European Commission unveils new research projects to fight influenza
Today, the European Commission has announced the results of its €18 million call for proposals for new research projects on influenza. Four collaborative research projects have been shortlisted for funding. They involve 52 research institutes and SMEs from 18 European countries and 3 international partners (Israel, China, the United States). Influenza virus genes migrate across continents and between species and seriously threaten both human and animal health. Two consortia will focus their research on influenza in pigs while the two others will develop innovative drugs against influenza in humans. Their selection is part of the EU’s longstanding support for research on influenza and brings the total Commission funding in this field to over €100 million since 2001.
EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said: “Seasonal flu alone can kill 250,000 – 500,000 people worldwide every year and EU-funded research projects like these can help save lives. What is more, successful EU research in preventing and treating flu and other diseases has enormous social and economic value and can contribute significantly to our Europe 2020 goals”.
Next steps
Final EU contribution per project and project details will be subject to the signature of contracts which should take place in 2010.
Background
The €18 million call for proposals for new research projects on influenza was launched in July 2009. 17 proposals were submitted.
Details of new influenza research projects announced today – more information and scientific background on the projects below at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=newsalert&lg=en&year=2010&na=na-090310-annexes
ESNIP 3 – European surveillance network for influenza in pigs 3
This ESNIP 3 project will maintain and expand the surveillance network for influenza in pigs established during the previous EU funded projects ESNIP 1 and ESNIP 2 which represented the only organised surveillance network of this kind. The project is expected to contribute to improved pandemic preparedness and planning for human influenza and provide an evidence base for decisions in relation to veterinary health.
Duration: 36 months
Expected EU contribution: €1 million
Coordinator: Ian Brown, The Veterinarian Laboratories Agency (United Kingdom), i.h.brown@vla.defra.gsi.gov.uk .
Contact for the press: Jane Goodger, j.goodger@vla.defra.gsi.gov.uk
25 Partners from 15 countries: United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Spain, Germany, Finland, Hungary, The Netherlands, Greece, Israel, China and the United States.
FLUPIG – Pathogenesis and transmission of influenza virus in pigs
This project aims at a better understanding of the role of pigs in influenza pandemics. The exact role of pigs is unclear, as is the nature of the genetic changes that are required for (a) efficient replication of an avian virus in pigs, (b) efficient transmission of avian viruses between pigs and (c) virus transmission from pigs to humans and between humans. More knowledge of this will be critical to the control of future influenza pandemics
Duration: 48 months
Expected EU contribution: €5 million
Coordinator: Kristien van Reeth, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, (Belgium), kristien.vanreeth@ugent.be
10 Partners from 8 countries: Belgium, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, China (Hong-Kong) and the United States.
FLU-PHARM – New drugs targeting influenza virus
The project FLU-PHARM will develop new drug candidates that inhibit viral replication in infected cells (by targeting the PB2 and PA protein domains). Such drugs are expected to have a reduced risk of patients developing resistance to them and less undesirable side-effects. If successful, FLU-PHARM will provide new opportunities for treating both seasonal and pandemic flu.
Duration: 42 months
Expected EU contribution: €6 million
Coordinator: Stephen Cusack, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (France) cusack@embl.fr
14 Partners from 7 countries: Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Slovakia, Belgium, Sweden
FLUCURE – Development of novel antiviral drugs against Influenza
The FLUCURE project will also targets the viral replication machinery (with a different approach as it will target the PB1/PA proteins and NP proteins) and aims to develop new drug candidates with reduced risk of resistance. The objective is to deliver one or more drug candidates suitable for entering clinical development within four years.
Duration: 48 months
Expected EU contribution: €6 million
Coordinator: Heather Marshall-Heyman, VIRONOVA AB (Sweden), heather.marshall-heyman@vironova.com
9 Partners from 7 European countries: Sweden, Switzerland, Bulgaria, The Netherlands, Lithuania, Germany, Italy
Reference research: business research and computer research and general research and my social page
blog
Clifford Madden
By Paul Kim (Twitter : @pkim) posted on November 27, 2010 at 5:21 am
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
VaultPress premium’s full price is planned to be $50 per month, not $60. The discounted beta price is correct, at $40/month for our premium service.
By Indian T.v Serials (Twitter : @waleedraza) posted on November 27, 2010 at 5:36 am
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
VaultPress goes beyond backups to include hacking protection too, Its Great!
By Karen Scharf posted on November 27, 2010 at 10:26 am
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
This is a great idea! Through vaultpress, hackers will find it too difficult to alter blogs undetected. It means a lot for larger blogs, they do not have to worry about it.
By greg urbano posted on November 27, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
back up your blogs!!
By Darnell Clayton (Twitter : @Darnell) posted on November 27, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
Thanks for the note Paul! BTW was it $60 before? I could have sworn I’d saw it mentioned somewhere that it was $60.
Either way $50/month sounds reasonable. If I didn’t have a great host (Firehost via Page.ly) I’d seriously consider going premium myself.
By Chris Neumann (Twitter : @blogsecure) posted on November 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment
I have a site called http://www.ultimateblogsecurity.com which allows you to *prevent* getting hacked in the first place. WordPress exposes a number of security vulnerabilities during installation (and upgrade to new versions!) that are easy but cumbersome to fix. We allow you to fix those in one click, and the pricing is reasonable too.