Anyone familiar with exgay groups knows that harmful outcomes are frequently covered up with many never getting into the media and thus are not captured by newspapers. Who knows how many actual events occur?

Apart from that… it’s Paul Cameron.

His transparent technique of data mining to arrive at an anti-gay conclusion based on proportional comparisons of two groups is exactly the same technique used by all others on the anti-gay side… to argue against including gay couples in marriage laws, adoption by gay couples etc etc.

There are those who directly quote Cameron… and there are those who use the Cameron technique.

(Warren, himself, is not above doing exactly that when it suits him eg [1], [2], [3] to give but a few at random.)

They all do it, and they all do it because their negative viewpoints — their allegations — cannot be sustained against individuals or against individual couples. One cannot argue against people such as those in the Lofton/Croteau household: instead, one slanders such people by false comparison.

Don’t have a sensible reason why some clearly identified stable long-term gay couples should be denied marriage?

Never mind, ignore those people and instead talk about how some nebulous thing called “gay relationships” are “more unstable” — as if all types of “gay relationships” as a whole said anything more about pair-bonded gay couples than all types of straight relationships do about straight marriages.

Cameron is simply doing what they are all guilty of. He doesn’t — cannot — have any sensible reason why individual gay men and women should not be teachers. Knowing this, he instead sets out to attack them with manipulative “research data” about The Gays(c).

——————–

Has anyone — Throckmorton, Jones, or Yarhouse — yet commented in public about their ISSI colleague Rekers working alongside Cameron on this vanity journal?

According to Cameron’s logic: If men in 2 parent families abuse children at a greater rate than women, should men’s rights be curtailed in any way? For instance, should men be denied the right to teach children, or to interact in unsupervised settings with children?

To substantiate my point, The Public Health Agency of Canada found that fathers account for 67% of all substantiated cases of physical abuse of children in 2 parent families. Link to the 2003 study here:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cm-vee/csca-ecve/toc_e.html

It is pretty clear to me that Cameron and/or his supporters would not likely assert the curtailment of men’s rights based on this, or any similar survey. They would likely argue that only the rights of child abusers should be curtailed.

So if the rights of men may not be curtailed – even though they account for a disproportionate amount of child abuse in Canadian families – then why is it OK to deny the rights of homosexuals because of the actions of some pedophiles?

Futhermore, if pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals, then why is it that homosexuals must bear the responsbility for pedophiles?

And there are more self-publications to come from him, I’m sure. Oh JOY.