Unable to contend with the overwhelming evidence that verifies the serious health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, militants turn to "character assassination" to destroy the credibility of those who provide objective information.
I am an evil person.
No one likes me.
Conservatives won't associate with me. Libertarians despise me.
While the above may seem a bit crass, it is representative of the image homosexual extremists project to discredit those with whom they disagree.
For example...
On July 19th a conservative blog in Indiana fielded the suggestion that I become a regular contributing writer. A prominent leader in the militant homosexual movement objected with the following post:
But, seriously, Curt and Kurt... You don't want Kenn over here. While I often consider ya'll wingnut religious fanatics, Kenn's views tend to run without any respect for facts in the least. (See his ongoing defense of a "doctor" run out of every medical profession. Would you defend, say, a "Baptist" minister as a true Baptist if the congregation had removed him from office, aid he wasn't a true minister of their faith, and thoroughly discredited everything he had said?) While my current level of respect for the IFI is very low, adding Kenn would definitely lower your org in the eyes of other conservatives even... He can't even play the "Libertarian" card anymore since he left the arty/wasNote the strategy used.
kicked out - depending on who you talk to.
• I can't be trusted to tell the truth.
• Associating with me would damage their image among their peers (conservatives)
• I've been abandoned by my own peer group (libertarians).
• Disinformation: A false rumor (lie) is injected suggesting I have been "kicked out" of the Libertarian Party.
• Lacking is any evidence of erroneous reporting.
Taking is personally
Unfortunately, the blacklisting strategy is effective. Here's what I have personally observed:
• Since mid-2006 when homosexual activists rose to prominence in the Libertarian Party of Indiana, conservatives and evangelicals were marginalized, criticized, ignored and, at times, met with hostility.
• When invited to participate in a movement to end property taxes in Indiana, I forewarned the organizer that I had been tagged by militant homosexuals as an "undesirable." After some initial investigation, he confirmed my warning.
Unfortunately, many conservatives unwittingly accept slander as fact. In some cases they actually help spread the rumors.
It should be noted that not all homosexuals engage in such visceral hatred. But many — perhaps most — do.
It stands to reason: If homosexuals don't mind destroying other homosexuals with lies regarding the health risks of their lifestyle, they certainly won't hesitate to destroy the reputations of those who disagree.
About "the doctor"
The physician to whom the writer refers is, apparently, Dr. Paul Cameron who has, indeed, born the brunt of continual disinformation and character assaults by militant homosexuals. Dr. Cameron is typical of those targeted by militant homosexuals with their visceral hatred.
What the militants won't tell you is that Dr. Cameron's research has been corrobborated by research from other respected scholars. Their methods may have been different, but the outcomes were the same. These are posted elsewhere on this site.
Nor will the militants tell you that Dr. Cameron's research was dismissed by a Texas judge with a long history of judicial activism.
The militants failed to mention that intimidation efforts — like the one posted above — were used against Dr. Cameron to alienate him from certain professional peer groups.
They also don't want you to know that there are hundreds of scholarly research papers and articles relating to the health risks of homosexuality. NOT ONE of these even suggests that the gay lifestyle is healthy. So why do they single out Cameron? Because he is vocal and effective.
Again...
In spite of their best efforts to discredit those who provide objective research, such research is corroborated by hundreds of objective scholarly studies and reports that accurately research the homosexual lifestyle. NOT ONE indicates that lifestyle is anything other than a serious health risk. [View links to studies here]
9 comments:
Dear Sir, You claim that "extremists" have maligned the reputation of Paul Cameron. Let me give you some facts:
“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" - conservative and Book of Virtues author William Bennett
"We do not support the work of Paul Cameron nor desire to use flawed research." - Exodus International President Alan Chambers
And to top it all off, I noticed that you included that study from Surgeon General nominee James Holsinger; a study he renounced in front of Congress.
You can believe that homosexuality is a sin. That is fine but I find it hypocritical that you cite Biblical verses talking about truth while knowingly lying on the lgbt community.
Your foundation is built on sand and thus will crumble.
And one more thing, just where are those HUNDREDS of objective studies that confirms Cameron's lies. I want to see them.
BlackTsunami,
Thanks for your comments (and for calling me "sir").
• That Bennett and others have been intimidated and cajoled by extremists into questioning Cameron's studies hardly constitutes sufficient cause to dismiss the conclusions out of hand. Having been personally victimized by similar strategies, I understand the effectiveness of such intimidation.
• I've been following Holsinger's nomination process and find the term "renounced" to be bit deceptive. Having reviewed his research, it appears to stand on its own merit.
• Sin is defined as anything one says, thinks or does that displeases God. For one to believe homosexuality is a sin, one must first believe in God. I'll leave the theological moralist question to the theists. My concern is the health risk of the behavior and the disinformation and the intrinsic denial commonly embraced by homosexuals.
• Regarding the studies "that confirm Cameron's lies," some are posted on this site; others are forthcoming. If you are aware of any honest, object study that reveals the homosexual lifestyle to be anything other than a health risk, I would appreciate being notified.
Thanks, again. Your input is appreciated.
You were the one who came up with the notion that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle" and u used Cameron's studies to quantify this theory. His studies are wrong and I showed proof of that.
I might also point out that the proof I showed came from CONSERVATIVE sources, not "radically gay" sources. My point was to show that even those who consider themselves Christians or conservative have a problem with Cameron's work.
And just like you I believe that we should leave whether or not homosexuality is a sin to theologians. I am also concerned by the agenda of misinformation and bad studies used by those who want to create the lie that "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle."
I would like to see where these people I cited were "intimidated." Do you have any proof of that? To claim that instead of refuting their statements demonstrates a degree of laziness.
There are NO studies that can show that the orientation of homosexuality is a negative thing. Like all things, heterosexuality included, it is the actions of individuals that should be scrutinized, not the orientations.
The studies you cite are studies that either freely cite Cameron, use convenience samples, or totally misinterpret the conclusion of other studies they cite.
I talk about all of this in my upcoming book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. I invite you to read my blog to see what I am talking about.
bt,
While Exodus Intl has distanced itself from Paul Cameron's studies, the conclusion of those studies still stand:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. (Dr. Robert S. Hogg)
Note that Dr. Hogg is a friend of the homosexual movement.
Ignoring the volume of objective research that confirms the health risk of the homosexual lifestyle is irresponsible.
Please take a moment and browse through the HEALTH RISK page. Note that most of the studies are from educational institutions with no bias; a few are from homosexual advocacy groups.
Skirting the issues by attacking the characters of the Drs. Cameron cannot change the coarse reality of the health risk associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
As time permits, more links will to research conclusions will be posted.
From Dr. Cameron's website:
"Dr. Cameron is a reviewer on homosexual submissions for the British Medical Journal (among the top 5 general science journals in the world), and is also a reviewer for Psychological Reports and the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. According to the National Library of Medicine and its online compilation of published medical and psychological research (PubMed), he is listed as one of the top ten researchers in the world on homosexuality in terms of number of published citations."
Have you read Dr. Cameron's rebuttal to the accusations leveled against him?
You mentioned Dr. Hogg's study.
In 2001, Dr. Hogg went on record saying that his study was being distorted by those claiming that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.
The link is here - http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
You mentioned Cameron's credentials. Psychological Reports is a pay-for-play publication that has little credibility. It charges $27.50 a page and no reviewer has the right to veto an entry, so it is not really peer reviewed. Between 1986 and 2005, Cameron published 33 articles about the gay community, and all but four have appeared publications like Psychological Reports.
Also, I have read Cameron's so-called rebuttals and they have no credibility. That is like a thief claiming he did not steal when you see the goods in his hands. If there is any other more objective source that embraces Cameron, please show it to me.
I noticed a great number of studies you included are by those who have a bias against gays.
Now some of the studies you included have no bias but cannot be seen as indicative of the entire gay community.
For example some of your studies have to do with men already infected with HIV - not indicative of the entire gay population.
The main problem is that you use all the studies to attribute the health problems of gay men to their orientation. No legitimate study has ever said gay men have problems because of their orienations. And the studies that do point out problems having to do with high risk behavior and depression usually cited those things as the effects of having to deal with a homophobic society.
I ask that you read the studies you cite rather than interpret them for your own purposes.
Well, I had been wondering...
When homosexual activists are confronted with hundreds of scholarly articles that confirm the health risks associated with their lifestyle...
How will they respond?
Now I know. Continued denial.
The intent of homosexual activists' attacks on Dr. Cameron and others (including myself) is to avoid confronting the information regarding the health risks associated with their lifestyle.
I don't know Dr. Cameron - never met him. The attacks against him immediately lose credibility because they are inclusive; that is, they portray the man as wholly evil.
Sky diving has its risks. It's a dangerous activity. No one is foolish enough to deny it.
The homosexual lifestyle is far more dangerous than sky diving. If it were not for government intervention, insurance companies would refuse to underwrite individuals actively participating in homosexual activity.
Why? The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
The homosexual lifestyle is like skydiving without a parachute.
Guys,
Have it your way. You have claimed that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle and either distorted legitimate studies and rely on discredited studies to prove this point.
The so-called attacks on Paul Cameron do not come from gay activists but legitimate physicians and researchers as well as other conservatives.
The only reason why you all continue to believe this stuff in spite of the proof that has been pointed out to you is because you have dislike of homosexuality that goes way beyond Biblical interpretation.
This tendency to whine that gays are attacking you is just a dodge. The only thing I have done is refute the nonsense on this web page One last thing - I still don't see those HUNDREDS of "scholarly articles."
No, bt, I don't hate you — or dislike you — any more than I dislike a chain smoker who refuses to believe his behavior places him at high risk; or the alcohol abuser who has convinced himself that he is exempt from liver disease; until it's too late.
That militant gays systematically seek to destroy those who disagree with them is no secret. They made an example of Anita Bryant in the 1970s. When Andrew Dice Clay spewed his hateful comedy, they led him ruin. Clay may have deserved it. Bryant certainly did not. But to the militants, there was no difference.
And if you won't believe me, pick up a copy of "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s." Read the strategies presented by Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk whose second step was to publicly attack and discredit critics in order to silence dissent.
I won't play the game.
Post a Comment