By Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, & Kay Proctor

How times have changed. Fathers of the Church joined ancient philosophers in considering men with homosexual desires more apt to seduce boys. Today, these ancient warnings have been cast aside as nothing more than (bigoted, homophobic) old wives’ tales. Consider psychiatrist Thomas Plante, residing scholar at Santa Clara University and adjunct professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. America published an essay by Dr. Plante in October 2018, entitled ‘No, Homosexuality is Not a Risk Factor for the Sexual Abuse of Children’ ¹. In it, he decries the belief that “banning homosexual men from the priesthood” would help prevent sexual victimization in the church. Instead, “it is often falsely believed that men with homosexual orientations cannot be trusted around male children and that their sexual impulse control is poor.” Indeed, Plante argues that “sexual orientation is not a risk factor at all,” contrary to the common sense notion that homosexuals must be to blame, especially since 80% of victims were boys.

Read more »

FRI Chairman, Dr. Paul Cameron, addressed the College Republican campus group at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs on March 8, 2017. We have posted a portion of the video of his address here. Dr. Cameron’s presentation was entitled “Will Homosexuality’s Rapid Rise Among Youth Ruin Trump’s Plans?”

He cited new research on the linkage between the demographic crisis facing the U.S. and the Western world in general, the recent growth in homosexuality among both our youth and young adults, and the fact that states which voted for Hillary Clinton in the recent U.S. presidential election exhibit significantly lower average total fertility rates than states which voted for Donald Trump.

The forthcoming Boy Scouts of America (BSA) National Council vote on its membership standards has drawn national attention and passionate voices on all sides. To study the ramifications of changing its long-standing policy to allow openly-identified homosexuals to join its ranks, BSA embarked on a “comprehensive listening exercise,” drawing perspectives from both “inside and outside of the Scouting family.” The Executive Summary of this study was released on April 30, 2013. Based on its findings, the national leadership of BSA is recommending that the membership standards be changed to allow scouts of any sexual orientation, but to continue to bar participation by openly homosexual adult leaders. Read more »

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Evelyn Hooker’s research comparing the mental health of 30 male homosexuals to 30 male heterosexuals may be the most influential study in the history of social science. The American Psychological Association (APA) claims her work was the major reason it began advocating for acceptance of homosexuality. It led the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to eliminate homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And it impacted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 legalization of sodomy in Lawrence v Texas.

Hooker reportedly believed experts would be unable to distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on psychological tests. Re-examination of her work indicates that Hooker’s study was neither rigorous nor reliable. Among other problems, homosexual subjects were easily identified on test protocols; her reports of how she obtained her samples were incomplete and contradictory; and her study generated results supportive of obsession/ compulsivity in homosexuals.

Thus Hooker’s study was seriously flawed. Moreover, because it was marketed by the APA as central in transforming homosexual activity from an illness=crime into acceptable behavior — yet Hooker did not correct those who mischaracterized her work — APA misrepresentations of Hooker over the past 40 years appear to be more in line with ideology than science.

Keywords: American Psychological Association, Evelyn Hooker, homosexuality, mental health, misrepresentation

Reference: Cameron P & Cameron K (2012) Re-examining Evelyn Hooker: Setting the record straight with comments on Schumm’s (2012) reanalysis. Marriage and Family Review, 48: 491-523.

PRESS RELEASE — September 4, 2012

American psychiatry says it categorizes mental disorders based on scientific facts – not political pressure. Those who promote homosexuality as normal cite the fact that professional associations no longer consider homosexuals disordered.

A new examination of the study that ‘changed psychiatric minds’ about homosexuality reveals such sloppiness that the scientific method had to have been ignored in favor of political correctness. Psychiatry’s junior partner — the American Psychological Association [APA] — sold psychiatrists a bill of goods when it claimed the Hooker study was ‘definitive’ proof that homosexuals were normal. Though Hooker’s study of 30 gays aimed to show homosexuals could not be detected by standard psychological tests, her subjects were unable to stop talking about homosexuality during the testing— a clear indication of obsessive compulsion!

Thanks in substantial part to efforts by the APA, the Hooker study attained near-sacred status in textbooks and court proceedings. A newly published editorial in the peer-reviewed journal Marriage & Family Review details how the APA colluded with Hooker to grossly misrepresent her findings.

“This may be the first fraud committed by a scientific organization. As the Hooker study is so central to the ‘homosexuals are normal’ argument, its exposure reopens the question of whether homosexuals are mentally disturbed,” said Dr. Paul Cameron, one of the study’s authors. “The American Psychiatric Association defines a mental disorder as ‘associated with… a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, [or] disability….’ Given that homosexuals are at significantly greater risk of suffering mental and physical diseases — and this apparently leads to their shortened average lifespan — homosexuality would appear to qualify as a mental disorder.”

The homosexual movement, many professional associations, and the media assert that whether or not a parent engages in homosexuality is irrelevant: as long as the child is loved, he will turn out OK. Traditional thought stresses the character of the parents, which they exhibit by raising a child within marriage instead of alone or in an informal union. Tradition also holds that the aberrant attitudes, behaviors, and associates of those who engage in homosexuality, illegal drug use, or criminality often have more influence on how a child turns out than their parents’ expressions of love or affirmation.

Supporters of homosexual parenting cite a number of academic studies to bolster their position. But these studies are almost exclusively based on small, volunteer samples. And their chief claim is that since ‘no statistically significant differences were found between the children of homosexual and heterosexual parents’ for this or that variable, the parenting situations must have ‘the same’ influence on the child.

The problem is that small samples generally yield ‘no statistical differences’ due to a lack of statistical power, so such findings do almost nothing to prove that the two parenting types produce ‘the same’ result. Furthermore, statistical claims of ‘sameness’ or ‘differences’ between two populations — and not just between the particular subjects in the study — rely on those subjects being approximately representative of ‘all heterosexual parents’ or ‘all homosexual parents,’ something that is rarely true of volunteers or individuals recruited by the investigators.

In addition, almost without exception, supporters of homosexual parenting refuse to acknowledge studies that support the traditional view — whether in their professional papers, in their court briefs, or on their websites. Ignoring counter-evidence is unusual in the hard sciences, but social science is heavily politicized, and the practice — especially in studies about homosexuality — is unfortunately common. While traditional beliefs are generally reinforced by careful examination of even the pro-gay literature,¹ below we compare the findings from the 2012 Regnerus study² against findings from studies that have been ‘generally ignored.’

Of all the studies of homosexual parents to date, Regnerus addressed the broadest array of variables and represents the largest random sample study of how adults turn out when they have (or had) a homosexual parent. 2,988 individuals aged 18-39 were culled from a probability-based pool of approximately 15,000 potential subjects in order to find an adequate number of adult children of homosexuals and a comparable number of adults with a similar demographic profile who were raised in other circumstances.

Regnerus’ findings support traditional beliefs that children do best in a married household, and that even sub-optimal heterosexual rearing — such as single parenthood or being raised with stepparents — is better than being raised by a homosexual.

Weighted to match population parameters, Regnerus estimated that 1.7% of the nation’s children have one or more homosexual parents. By comparison, Cameron and Cameron’s random survey³ of 5,182 adults in 1983-84 yielded unweighted estimates of 1.6% and 1.7%. Such close agreement between two nationwide studies based on random samples reinforces the credibility of both investigations. In Table 1, each of the 40 outcome measures that Regnerus studied and reported is ranked by kind of family unit. The family type that scored best on each variable is ranked #1, second-best #2 and so on, with the worst ranked #8. Family types that were tied on any outcome were assigned a common ‘midrank,’ a standard statistical rank average.

Most of Table 1 fits right in line with traditional beliefs. For instance, those with gay or lesbian parent(s) were the:

• most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual,
• most apt to be on welfare,
• least apt to be employed,
• most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection,
• most apt to have recently thought of suicide,
• most apt to report rape,
• most apt to test impulsive,
• most apt to smoke,
• most apt to report heavy TV viewing,
• most apt to have been arrested,
• most apt to have pled guilty to a crime,
• most apt to score high on depression,
• least apt to report being able to depend on others,
• least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family, and
• most promiscuous

Participants who have/had homosexual parents generally rank more poorly on the other variables of concern in Table 1, even if they are not always ‘the worst.’ Any random sample will exhibit fluctuations — no matter what the setting or experiences, some children do well on something when most do poorly. But since gays and lesbians report more frequent smoking, drug use, arrest, rape, and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as testing more mentally disturbed,⁴ just about all the findings in Table 1 make sense if the children of homosexuals tend to mimic them (e.g., ‘like produces like’). Heavier TV viewing, being on welfare, and testing impulsive by the children of homosexuals’ are ‘new’ findings, since previous direct data on homosexuals are mixed or absent for these variables.

Table 1. After Regnerus, Ranked Outcome Measures

Measure/Family Type	Intact Biological Married Family	Lesbian Mother	Gay Father	Adopted by Strangers
N	(919)	(163)	(73)	(101)
Currently married	1	6.5	8	2.5
Currently cohabiting	2	7	6	1
Family got welfare	2	8	7	1
Current public assistance	1	8	2.5	4
Currently employed	1	8	7	5
Currently unemployed	1	8	6	7
Voted last election	4.5	8	1	3
Recent suicide thought	1.5	7	8	3
Recent/current therapy	1	6.5	6.5	8
Identifies as heterosexual	1	8	7	5
In same-sex relationship	3	5	6	8
Had affair	2	8	6	5
Ever STI	1.5	7	8	5.5
Ever sex touch by parent	1	8	3	2
Ever forced sex	1	8	7	5
Educational attainment	2	8	5.5	1
Family safety/security	1	8	7	2.5
Family negative impact	1	8	6	5
Closeness to mother	1	2	7	8
Closeness to father	1	7	4	8
Physical health	1	8	2	3
Overall happiness	1	5	8	4
CES-D depression index	1	8	7	5
Attachment scale (depend)	1	8	7	6
Attachment scale (anxiety)	1	7	5.5	5.5
Impulsivity scale	5	8	7	2
Household income	1	8	4	2
Current relationship index	1	5	8	7
Trouble current relationship	1	5	8	5
Frequency marijuana use	1	7	5	2
Frequency alcohol use	6.5	1	6.5	8
Frequency of drunkenness	2.5	6	8	4
Frequency smoking	1	8	7	5
Frequency watch TV	2	8	7	4
Frequency been arrested	1	7	8	2
Frequency pled guilty	1	7	8	4
N female sex ptnrs (women)	1	7	8	3.5
N female sex ptnrs (men)	1	5	8	3
N male sex ptnrs (women)	1	5	8	3
N male sex ptnrs (men)	1	8	7	2
Rank average	1.56	6.88	6.39	4.24
Rank std deviation	1.20	1.63	1.78	2.08
Rank std error	0.19	0.26	0.28	0.33

Table 1. After Regnerus, Ranked Outcome Measures (cont.)

Measure/Family Type	Divorced Since Age 18	Step Family	Single Parent	Other
N	(116)	(394)	(816)	(416)
Currently married	6.5	2.5	5	4
Currently cohabiting	8	4.5	4.5	3
Family got welfare	4	6	5	3
Current public assistance	7	5.5	5.5	2.5
Currently employed	4	2	3	6
Currently unemployed	4.5	3	2	4.5
Voted last election	2	4.5	6	7
Recent suicide thought	4	6	1.5	5
Recent/current therapy	3	5	4	2
Identifies as heterosexual	3	6	3	3
In same-sex relationship	4	7	2	1
Had affair	1	7	4	3
Ever STI	3	5.5	4	1.5
Ever sex touch by parent	5.5	7	5.5	4
Ever forced sex	6	3.5	3.5	2
Educational attainment	3	5.5	4	7
Family safety/security	5.5	5.5	4	2.5
Family negative impact	7	3	4	2
Closeness to mother	5	3	6	4
Closeness to father	5	2	6	3
Physical health	5	4	6	7
Overall happiness	2	6	3	7
CES-D depression index	6	3	2	4
Attachment scale (depend)	4	5	3	2
Attachment scale (anxiety)	8	3	2	4
Impulsivity scale	6	3	1	4
Household income	3	5	6	7
Current relationship index	2.5	6	2.5	4
Trouble current relationship	7	5	3	2
Frequency marijuana use	8	3	6	4
Frequency alcohol use	4	3	5	2
Frequency of drunkenness	7	2.5	5	1
Frequency smoking	6	4	3	2
Frequency watch TV	5	6	3	1
Frequency been arrested	5.5	5.5	4	3
Frequency pled guilty	6	5	2.5	2.5
N female sex ptnrs (women)	6	3.5	2	2
N female sex ptnrs (men)	6	7	2	4
N male sex ptnrs (women)	4	7	6	2
N male sex ptnrs (men)	6	5	3	4
Rank average	4.95	4.64	3.89	3.46
Rank std deviation	1.74	1.51	1.46	1.74
Rank std error	0.28	0.24	0.23	0.27

Comparison to Other Studies

Custody Appeals Study: Cameron and Cameron⁵ and Cameron and Harris⁶ did the most unique studies of homosexual parenting to date: an analysis of child custody appeals cases. These were based on intensive examination of the real life of the parents and their children — that is, not based on answers to questionnaires as with Regnerus, but subject to cross-examination in court. The latter study examined 78 custody appeals decisions involving 79 homosexual parents and 142 children. The 142 children were exposed to a thousand child-years of homosexual parenting and found:

1. parents recorded as lying or engaging in criminality or homosexuality were more apt to be recorded as harming children;
2. homosexual parents as compared to heterosexual parents were more frequently recorded as lying and/or engaging in criminality;
3. in 54 (70%) cases the homosexual parent and/or his associates was recorded as having exposed the children to harm(s) (e.g., neglect, seduction, emotional distress, hypersexualization), as opposed to the heterosexual parent in 4 (5%) cases; and
4. homosexuals were responsible for 111 (97%) of the 115 harms to children in the appeals court record. In 78 heterosexual vs. heterosexual comparison cases, the 141 children were exposed to 12 harms, harms that occurred in 11 (14%) cases.

The study also found that lesbian mothers as compared to gay fathers:

1. were of lesser character as indexed by more frequent lying or criminality,
2. were more apt to generate harms to their children, and
3. had more contact with their children in that 84% of the lesbians vs. 15% of the gays became involved in disputing who would get primary custody.

In Table 1, there is a slight difference in outcomes favoring the gay fathers over lesbian mothers, which tends to support the notion that gays less frequently cause harms to their children. Regnerus noted that among “those who said their mother had a same-sex relationship, 91% reported living with their mother while she was in the romantic relationship, and 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months at some point prior to age 18.… Among those who said their father had a same-sex relationship, however, 42% reported living with him while he was in a same-sex romantic relationship, and 23% reported living with him and his partner for at least 4 months” (p. 757). Both Regnerus and the custody appeals study found greater contact by lesbians than by gays with their children.

‘Everybody’ would have picked the winners and losers in the Regnerus study prior to the 1980s. The courts almost always sided with the heterosexual in child custody disputes involving a divorcing parent who chose homosexuality — traditional beliefs permeated the whole culture. The analysis of the 78 custody appeals fits rather nicely into what people 50 years ago would have called ‘common sense.’ Likewise, it is likely that no one would have been surprised by the outcomes found in the study of appeals cases.

A systematic effort by Hollywood and academia — including the professional societies — to ‘clean up’ the image of homosexuality has been underway for some time. Hollywood, especially, seems to tout the importance of ‘love’ overcoming all (except, of course, when it comes to keeping actors and actresses married). Among other components of academia, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have ignored and/or suppressed not only the custody appeals study, but all the following studies in their public statements, court briefs and journals:

• Javaid⁷ reported a study comparing 26 children of 11 lesbian vs. 28 children of 15 divorced mothers. The 4 children who reported asexuality (see line 10, Table 1 above) had lesbian mothers, and more lesbians’ daughters were apt to reject or be uncertain about getting married and having children (line 1, Table 1).

• Cameron and Cameron (1996) reported on 17 adults with homosexual parents (out of a random sample of 5,182) and how frequently in 986 consecutive Washington, DC obituaries (1988-1993) from gay newspapers homosexuals had children (6% of the gays, 29% of the lesbians were so listed). The 17 were disproportionately apt to report (a) sexual relations with their parents (line 14, Table 1), (b) a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (line 10, Table 1), (c) gender dissatisfaction, and (d) that their first sexual experience was homosexual.

• Sarantakos⁸ closely matched (by age, sex, grade in school, and social class) 58 elementary school children being raised by coupled homosexual parents with 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual parents and 58 children being raised by married heterosexual parents. The children of married couples scored best at math and language skills, experienced the highest levels of parental involvement at school and at home, and had parents with the highest expectations for them. The homosexuals’ children scored somewhat higher in social studies, lowest in math and language, were least popular, experienced the lowest levels of parental involvement both at school and at home (lines 17-20, 24, 25, Table 1), were more distant from their parents, and had parents with the lowest expectations for their children and who least frequently expressed higher educational and career aspirations for them (line 16, Table 1).

• Sirota⁹ paired 68 adult daughters of gay fathers with 68 daughters of heterosexual fathers. Daughters with gay fathers tested less comfortable with intimacy and more anxious (lines 25, 28, Table 1); were less religious and more frequently engaged in compulsive heterosexuality (line 38, Table 1); less frequently married (19% if father was gay vs. 32% if father was heterosexual; line 1, Table 1); more frequently reported a bi/homosexual preference (34% if father was gay vs. 3% if father was heterosexual; almost every study has reported similarly, including Regnerus); reported less closeness to parents (lines 19, 20, Table 1); and more frequently indicated abusing drugs or alcohol (44% if father was gay vs. 7% if father was heterosexual; lines 30-32, Table 1).
• Among the families of subjects in Sirota’s study, one or more parents reportedly abused drugs and/or alcohol in 59% of gay-father families vs. 31% of heterosexual-father families. 72% of families with gay fathers dissolved, while 68% of families with heterosexual fathers stayed intact. More frequent divorce/partner changing within homosexual-headed families was reported by Cameron & Cameron (1996) and Regnerus.

Conclusion

The above studies generally jibe with traditional common sense. They also fit the findings from custody appeals cases in our court system, as well as the outcomes in the Regnerus study. At the bottom of Table 1, across all 40 outcome measures taken as a whole, intact biological, heterosexually-married families had far and away the best rank average, while lesbian- and gay-headed homes clearly ranked last.

If parental homosexuality is as irrelevant as homosexuals, our professional associations, and the media assert, why are the above studies — methodologically as sound or better than the ones cited by these entities — ignored or dismissed? Given that both Cameron and Cameron and Regnerus reported homosexual parents more frequently became sexually involved with their kids, why is the psychiatric elite so anxious to allow more children to be exposed to the risk of homosexual seduction? How did psychiatry become so wise that it knows ‘the way it ought to be’ without fulfilling the basic requirement of good scholarship — to address all the evidence, and not just selected bits that fit one’s own preconceived notions?

Do those involved in homosexuality live as long on average as non-homosexuals? Hard evidence is difficult to come by, but the data we do have suggests that homosexuality tends to shorten life by many years. This briefing summarizes some of the key data.

U.S. Obituaries Over 13 Years

6,737 obituaries from 18 U.S. homosexual journals, compared to obituaries from 2 mainstream newspapers

Category	Mean Age At Death	% Who Died Aged 65+
Heterosexual Married Men	75	80%
Heterosexual Married Women	79	85%
Homosexual Males, AIDS Deaths	39	1%
Homosexual Males, Non-AIDS Deaths	42	9%
Lesbians	44	20%

Statistics Denmark, 1990-2002

Official death tallies — Ever married individuals vs. ever homosexually-partnered (561 gays, 91 lesbians)

Category	Mean Age At Death	% Who Died Aged 65+
Ever Married Men	74	79%
Ever Married Women	78	85%
Ever Homosexually Partnered Men	51	22%
Ever Homosexually Partnered Women	56	24%

References:

• Cameron P, Playfair WL, & Wellum S (1994) The longevity of homosexuals: before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega, 29:249-272
• Cameron P, Cameron K (2007) Federal distortion of homosexual footprint (ignoring early gay death?). Eastern Psychological Assn Convention, Philadelphia

Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is proportionality. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.

Three Critical Facts

• Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
• 90+% of child molesters are male
• The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13

From Facts to Disproportionate Reality

• Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
• U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
• 25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority

• ~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
• ~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
• 21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex

Sex With One’s Own Children

• Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

References:

• Sahil (2009) Cruel Numbers 2009
• Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43
• Jay K & Young A (1979) The Gay Report. NY: Summit
• Cameron P (2007) Teacher-pupil sex, how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal Same-Sex Sexual Behavior;1:1-19 (on-line)
• Cameron P (2005) Child molestation by homosexual foster parents: Illinois, 1997-2002. Psychological Reports 96: 227-230
• Cameron P (2005) Are over a third of foster parent molestations homosexual? Psychological Reports 96:275-298
• Cameron P & Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence 124, Winter, 757-776

Introduction

Western society is at great peril. We have forgotten the importance of children — and our individual responsibility to marry, then bear and raise children. While any society needs to produce at least 2.1 children/woman to maintain its population, many Western nations have fallen far below that threshold. And even those with more stable fertility levels do not have enough children born and raised within the context of marriage (Figure 1). Because our situation is dire, something drastic must be done. This proposal is one possible solution.

Every road children walk and every school they attend are courtesy of their parents and society. While we use it all the time, the abstract term “society” tends to conceal the fact that society consists of your family and other people’s children. The diversity of products and services you need but can’t produce is courtesy of other people’s (usually adult) children. Our nations are filled with wonders created and maintained by other people’s children. Instead of living hand-to-mouth as so many of our ancestors, we have abundance due to what other people’s children created for our use.

Because other people’s children produced food, other people’s children have transported it, and still other people’s children have processed it, almost all of us have access to delights that couldn’t even be imagined in simple societies. Likewise for a host of commodities that march out of our stores every day.

Our children are often taught by other people’s children, we are defended by other people’s children. Our politicians, our doctors, our lawyers — all are other people’s children. Because each of us has benefited so much from the labor of other people’s children, fairness and justice require that each of us contribute children so that others can likewise benefit. And because we benefit from other people’s children’s willingness to produce more than they consume, fairness and justice demand that we do the same.
This reality underlay the Roman Empire’s law forbidding inheritances to the childless, Jews requiring leaders have a son, and St. Paul’s admonition that younger widows remarry and have children. Past leaders of our civilization agreed: Fairness and decency demand that those who benefit from the efforts of other peoples’ children share in the sacrificial burden of bearing and raising children.

Does this mean that the voluntarily childless are stealing from their neighbors? Absolutely. We have all benefited from society. Therefore each of us must do our best to help provide a stable framework under which all can prosper. The demands of fairness and justice boil down to three basic expectations of every able-bodied citizen:

• to not trouble society;
• to produce more than we consume; and
• to get married and have children.

The Risk Of Demographic Suicide

The decline in birthrates is a crisis across Western society. Not only have fertility rates dropped precipitously,¹ but more and more children are born out of wedlock (Figure 1).² Traditionally, sex — within the context of marriage — was supposed to provide society’s next generation. But with the exception of the U.S., first-world countries are failing to produce the 2.1 children per woman-in-her-lifetime required for civilization’s continuance. Furthermore, even within the U.S. — given that almost 40% of American babies are now born to unwed mothers — the U.S. married fertility rate (i.e., lifetime births per woman born in marriage) is less than 1.3.

No matter what level a society’s current wealth, too few replacement children assure a bleak future. While Europe has an overall fertility rate of 1.5 per woman, many countries — including Italy, Moldova, Spain, and Poland — are at 1.3 or below. So, unless things change dramatically and without an influx of immigrants, in about 35 years, populations in these countries will be halved.
Stores and factories will close for lack of employees, insurance companies will go bankrupt, farms will be left fallow, etc. In these nations, it is only a matter of years until their children will be required to tend the weak, and it will be impossible to honor “social security.” Given economic interdependence, the demographic collapse of any first-world country is likely to send tremors throughout the West. Italy’s demographic decline is — even today — sucking mothers and potential mothers from nearby, poorer countries like Moldova to care for its aged. The wealth that Italy currently has is sufficient to drain enough motherhood from Moldova to exacerbate Moldova’s own demographic crisis.

Within a few years — 15 or 20 at the most for countries with rates of childbearing at 1.3/woman or lower — the plight of the aged and infirm will weigh on everyone’s conscience. But unless highly sophisticated robots can be employed, almost nothing will be possible to relieve them. The young will be too busy tending the engines of production to spare the time required to tend the old. And the young will be tempted as well to ‘follow the non-reproductive path’ of their elders, rather than the more difficult and expensive task of getting married and raising children.

Adding to these difficulties is the growing tolerance and outright acceptance of both non-marital and non-procreative sex, including homosexuality. In some ways, homosexuality is both a cause and a symptom of the West’s demographic decline. That those who enjoy a sexual lifestyle to the exclusion of getting married and having children are accepted and even given protected status means that the old rules have been abandoned in favor of a ‘psychiatric viewpoint.’

The old rules demanded that every able person contribute to society by not breaking the law, working a productive job, and getting married and raising a family. Meeting societal expectations was the first priority. Under the ‘psychiatric model,’ the individual patient or client is the center of the universe. Because they need help, or comfort, or advice, the client’s interests predominate over the needs or interests of society, and not the other way around.

In a clinic or hospital, where psychiatrists or psychologists are paid to care for the ‘mentally disturbed,’ this model makes some sense. But now the worldview associated with the ‘psychiatric model’ has permeated into all of society. No one thinks twice about allowing individual desires or ‘needs’ to trump social responsibilities. We are a ‘free’ society, after all, and people can do what they want.

Unfortunately, no society can long endure that enables and endorses such self-centered madness. The more individuals that are permitted to ‘absent themselves from social responsibilities’ because ‘they are uncomfortable with or unfulfilled with marriage and family responsibilities’ (e.g., gays, lesbians, and transgendered), the more others will follow them. Of course, not all who follow will want to become homosexual. Rather, if one group — declared ‘normal and healthy’ by the mental health establishment — is given a pass from some of the basic social duties, then others have the right to expect the same treatment for their own ‘lack of fulfillment or discomfiture.’

At some point — a point many Western countries have already passed — too many people exercise their ‘right to be themselves’ to such a degree that too few children are born, especially within marriage. Feeling like ‘not having a child’ provides sufficient justification for preventing conception or choosing an abortion. Likewise, no longer being ‘happy in marriage’ justifies divorcing or having an affair. Given our highly efficient contraception and abortion techniques, the result is a society with not enough individuals willing to honor their marital and reproductive responsibilities.

We have transformed ourselves into a population bristling with individual ‘rights’ instead of responsibilities. And the result is that the West is currently headed toward demographic suicide. To be sure, some countries are ameliorating their lack of children by importing workers. Additionally, many of those imported — before they become assimilated and adopt a more individualistic, psychiatric mindset — produce more than the requisite 2.1 children/woman. But these children are only a generation or two away from being fully assimilated, and as such may be a ‘mixed blessing.’ They also tend to provide a false sense of security since their fertility patterns do not match those of the rest of the culture.

The raw fertility numbers also paint only part of the picture. Because of rising out-of-wedlock birth rates (Figure 1), increasing numbers of the fewer children being born in the West do not enjoy the security of having a married mother and father. As a consequence, many of these children will disproportionately engage in violence, substance abuse, non-marital sexual exploration (some homosexual), and in short, be expensive citizens. Some will be so expensive and so far from fulfilling their own social obligations that, from a social standpoint, ‘it would have been better had they never been born.’

A Practical Solution

If marriage with children can be made sufficiently attractive, many young adults will opt out of their high levels of promiscuity, some will manage to contain their same-sex sexual desires and not engage in homosexuality, and others will be less likely to use contraception or obtain abortions.

The following proposal assumes that individuals in any society seek three basic things: goods, status, and power. Society can adjust the financial, status, and power rewards and incentives associated with almost any behavior or achievement. For instance, in the age of technology, those who create new products are highly prized and are typically given ample amounts of both money and status. While those who are married with children cannot be given the level of financial and status rewards proffered to inventors of useful new products, they can be given solid doses of both. Further, the right to vote is an important power in a democratic society. Under our proposal, those who are married with children would attain an electoral power not available to others. And our scheme is largely ‘revenue neutral,’ requiring modest increases in taxes, but mostly simply shifting who gets taxed and by how much.

A Practical Proposal to Strengthen Marriage and Family

Policy Goal

Whereas a demographic crisis has swept across Western society, every reasonable step should be taken to encourage youth to get married, stay married, and have children. By encouraging people to marry and have children, we increase their chances of psychological well-being, opening the door to: A) greater transcendence (immortality through their children and grandchildren); B) more love (from their spouse, children and grandchildren); and C) greater stability (with many bonds of love helping to tie the individuals’ world together). Such encouragements also discourage selfish, anti-natal attitudes and behaviors

Policy Initiatives—

Money/Goods/Honor:

(1) Lottery & Internet Honor Roll. The names of parents and the number of their children would be honored on a government website under “Guarantors of XX’s (insert country name) Future” with their names and numbers of children. Public service announcements lauding those on the website would be made on a regular basis. Additionally, all those married-with-children would be enrolled in a free lottery. Each month, one eligible couple per legislative or Congressional district would be drawn at random and awarded, say $10,000 tax-free. News releases about the winning couples — including how they intend to spend their prize and how the prize affected them and their children — would be regularly released to the press so that families can get ‘face time’ in the media.

Comment: In the U.S., there are about 25 million married couples with children under age 18 — averaging about 57,000 in each of the 435 Congressional districts. One couple awarded $10,000 per district per month would cost approximately $52 million per year, $104 million if the award were raised to $20,000. A mere $1 billion per year would cover 10 winning couples per district per month.

Comment: As a rule, honor is a strong motivator. The honor of being on the official “Guarantors of XX’s (insert country name) Future” will motivate some to get married and have children. The lottery winners, and the attention they get, should also be a motivator.

(2) Restricting Inheritance. Mimic the early Roman Empire in which only the married with children could inherit. This could be implemented with the following rule: “only parents (of natural or adopted children) may inherit anything of value that exceeds the value of 5 ounces of gold from any person or entity unless the beneficiary is one of the bequeathing entity’s children under the age of 25 years.”

Comment: This provision follows Roman law, but acknowledges that we are richer today. The fixing of 5 ounces of gold, which equates to about $4,000-$5,000 today, is arbitrary. Parental estates should go almost entirely to their children who themselves have children. By age 25, most who hope to inherit should be married and have a child. This provision would have nothing to do with gifts.

(3) Shifting the Tax Burden to Non-Parents. To both encourage marriage with children, and make staying single or childless less fiscally attractive, the tax burden on those married with children would always be less than that placed on non-parents (other things being equal). In addition, those who married with children would always get a larger government pension. Granting married couples (or the widowed) who are raising their own or adopted children a substantial exemption per child (in the U.S., for instance, $10,000/child) from all federal taxes (including income, health care, retirement, etc.) would make having children in marriage fiscally attractive. This exemption would stay in force as long as the couple was married and raising children under the age of 19 years. Divorce or emancipation of the children would terminate the exemption.

Comment: Tax policy has a profound effect on what people do. Both the privelege of, and the actuality of, paying less in taxes will encourage citizens to get married and have children. The promise of a somewhat better pension, since all pensions depend upon the labor of one’s and others’ children, should also encourage marriage with children.

Power:

(4) Preference in Government Hiring. Other things being equal, any government job would first be offered to parents, with extra preference given to parents currently raising children under 19 years of age.

Comment: As government jobs are valued, giving the married with children preference in hiring encourages getting married and having children (but also gives primacy to unmarried parents supporting young children).

(5) Extra Voting Privileges. Those who contribute more to the future should have a greater say in how the future is addressed. Therefore, parents would be given an extra vote — ‘the parents’ vote.’ In any public election, where each citizen of appropriate age has a vote, a parent shall have two: one as a citizen and one as a parent who has contributed to the future. The ability to cast two votes will remain with a parent for life, since, because of their children and grandchildren, they will remain highly concerned about and invested in society’s future.

Comment: The honor and power of being able to cast two votes will encourage still others to get married and have children. Today, although a wealthy citizen has only a single personal vote, through expenditures they can exercise considerable influence on other citizens’ votes (e.g., George Soros). In the past, when scarcity ruled, the greater power of the economic elite made sense: the wealthy were more apt to be educated as well as more involved with society’s functioning. But the great need today is for more children, not more wealth. So giving more power to parents makes sense. Additionally, as parents are usually transformed by their children and parental concern to have a greater investment in the future, parents’ opinions about issues and candidates are bound to be better for society as a whole.

Comment: Note that parenthood does not entirely depend upon being married. Parents who are married, single, divorced or widowed would still have the ‘two votes’ power. However, parents who abandon or fail to support their children would be stripped of any extra voting powers.

Comment: Another anticipated benefit of multiple votes is a shift in political attention toward the family. Such a shift will encourage legislators to use their creative powers to pass laws further augmenting the attractiveness of being married and having children.

Comment: A Polish Parliamentarian, Tadeusz Woźniak, has suggested this idea might be better still if a parent got an extra vote for each child. Parents with one child would get one extra vote each, those with two children, two votes apiece, and those with 10 children ten votes, etc. Perhaps a limit of, say, 6 votes/parent would be more realistic, but whatever ‘works’ to generate more children within marriage should be implemented. Having a society that is ‘fair’ but dead for lack of children makes no sense whatsoever.

(6) Medical Treatment Preferences. Those who married with children, irrespective of their current age, would get preference for any organ transplant or exceptional medical treatment.

Comment: The promise of at least somewhat better medical care will be an encouragement to produce children for some.

Status:

(7) Banning Support for Non-Procreative Sex. The non-procreative, besides being made to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, would be denied certain governmental support. Non-procreative sex acts or relationships based upon non-procreative sex acts would not be supported or sustained in any way by any government policy, law, or regulation. Favorable depiction of non-procreative sex acts in educational settings paid for by tax moneys or licensed by the government, or the use of government facilities such as streets for parades, walls of government buildings for posters, or government websites to promote the acceptance of non-procreative sex acts would be forbidden; likewise, those who are in or who engage in homosexual or other non-procreative relationships and those who are in or who engage in procreative relationships without being married would not receive any governmental support beyond that given to the unmarried-in-general.

Comment: This provision increases the status of the married with children by outlawing state sponsorship or support of homosexual acts, rectal sex, oral sex, or any other sexual expression other than penile-vaginal sex. This would not make such acts illegal, only that they can receive no state-sponsored support. It would outlaw state benefits or protections being given to homosexuals or unmarried heterosexuals who are living together that exceed those benefits and protections given other unmarried citizens.

(8) Banning Support for Cross-Gender Pretense. No one who pretends he is the opposite sex would receive assistance in getting drugs or operations to support his pretense from the state, nor would any government policy, law, or regulation grant such pretenders protections or benefits exceeding those of other citizens.

Comment: This provision increases the status of the married with children by removing state support for or in any way supporting those who pretend they are the opposite sex (e.g., the so-called transgendered or transsexual, as well as cross-dressers, etc.).

Current Educational “Wisdom” — 1995

Major educational associations tell U.S. Supreme Court there is no “foundation in fact” to the claim that gay teachers “are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children”

The Empirical Truth

• Every comparative study indicates gay teachers are the most likely — and heterosexual female teachers the least likely — to sexually molest students
• Homosexuals comprise ≤ 4% of teachers, but far out-do their share of teacher-pupil molestations

Media News Reports, 1980-2006

• 902 teachers molested 3,457 students; 43% of perpetrators were homosexual



• Disproportionate homosexual ‘footprint’ around the world: Ireland (63%), New Zealand (62%), Canada (60%), Scotland (54%), Australia (48%), England (47%), U.S. (35%), Africa (26%), Asia (13%)

Survey of Principals

• 1400 principals asked about teacher-student sex complaints
• 7% reported homosexual contact, 13% heterosexual contact; 35% of all complaints were about homosexual teachers

Reports by Superintendents

• New York State — 225 reported cases of student sexual abuse by “professional staff;” 27% of abuses were homosexual
• North Carolina — 21 high school teachers disciplined for sexual contact with students in “past 3 years;” 29% were homosexual

Disciplinary Actions

• 199 teachers disciplined for molesting pupils in 10 western U.S. states
• 32% of perpetrators engaged in homosexuality

References:

• Amicus brief, p. 22, quoted in Cameron P, Cameron K, Landess T (1996) Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Educational Association in representing homosexuality in amicus briefs about Amendment 2 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Psychological Reports, 79,383-404
• Cameron P (2007) Teacher-pupil sex across the world: how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior, 1;1-19. (on line)
• Hechinger G & Hechinger FM (1978) Should homosexuals be allowed to teach? McCall’s 105(6), 100f
• Shakeshaft C & Cohan A (1995) Sexual abuse of students by school personnel. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 513-520.
• Wishnietsky DH (1991) Reported and unreported teacher-student sexual harassment. Journal of Educational Research 84, 164-169
• Rubin S (1988) Sex education: teachers who sexually abuse students. Paper presented at 24th International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia
• Cameron P & Cameron K (1996) Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils? Journal of Psychology 1996;130:603-613

A Shocking Murder

• 2011 begins with news reports of the “corkscrew” murder: 21 yr-old male model murders his lover, a 65 yr-old Portuguese gay activist; cuts off his testicles with a corkscrew
• Shocking aberration? One-time event? Or part of a pattern?

Homosexuality and Violence Are No Strangers

• Top six U.S. serial killers were all involved in homosexuality
• Past 5 years: 22% of 2,281 male homosexuals reported gay-on-gay physical violence; 5.1% reported gay-on-gay rape

Disproportionate Domestic Violence

• Yearly domestic violence reports are disproportionately homosexual
• Married adults reporting domestic violence: men = 0.04%; women = 0.24%
• Homosexually-partnered adults reporting domestic violence: gays = 4.6%; lesbians = 5.8%

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2004

• Homosexuals more apt to report being raped, robbed, or assaulted each year
• Homosexuals = 3.2%; heterosexuals = 1%

References:

Greenwood, et al (2002) Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. American Journal Public Health 92:1964-1969
Rennison CM (2001) Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, NCJ 187635. (www.ncjrs.org)
Beauchamp DL (2008) Sexual orientation and victimization: 2004. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Beginning of a Myth — 1948

• Dr. Alfred Kinsey claims “37% of all men” had engaged in homosexuality; “10% were more or less homosexual”
• Gay activists and academicians treat 10% figure as fact; endlessly repeat it

The Problem

• Kinsey’s sampling method was woefully defective; heavily overloaded with prisoners, gay bars, and prostitutes; completely non-random
• Distorted picture of American sexual habits; severely overestimated the prevalence of homosexuality

Best Evidence Today

• < 2% of adults are currently ‘homosexual’ in large-scale probability surveys
• Sexual preference/orientation is not ‘fixed’ or ‘frozen,’ even in adulthood; some try or abandon many kinds of sex, including homosexuality

1996, US Centers for Disease Control

• National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, 12,381 non-institutionalized adults, aged 18-59
• 1.3% of men, 1.1% of women participated in homosexual activity during the past year

2004, Statistics Canada

• 121,300 adults
• “1.0% of Canadians aged 18 to 59 considered themselves homosexual, and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual”

2010, British Office of National Statistics

• 238,000 adults aged 16+
• Response rate close to 96%
• 1.6% of men, 1.3% of women said they were homosexual or bisexual

References:

1. Anderson JE, Wilson RW, Barker P, Doll L, Jones TS, & Holtgrave D (1999) Prevalence of sexual and drug-related HIV risk behaviors in the U.S. adult population: results of the 1996 national household survey on drug abuse. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 21:148-156. [CDC report]
2. Statistics Canada (2004) The Daily, June 15, Canadian Community Health Survey. [Canadian data]
3. Joloza T, Evans J, O’Brien R (2010) Measuring sexual identity: an evaluation report. Sept, Office for National Statistics [British data]

FRI’s Analysis of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s Decision on Proposition 8

September 2010

Introduction and Summary

Much of what we ‘know’ cannot be scientifically proven: man-woman marriage ‘worked’ to get us here, but we can’t re-run the world to see if something else would have done it. Since it ‘brought us here,’ ‘common sense’ (and the law until recently) considered man-woman marriage presumptively ‘necessary.’

But what if ‘everything’ was put to ‘rigorous scientific test’ — we had to ‘prove it’? That strategy works in the hard sciences, why not the soft? The mental health professional associations (arguably led by the American Psychological Association [APA]) have been pushing the notion that truth is equivalent to peer-reviewed social science or, better yet, to what either the professional associations or the ‘consensus of scientists’ say that social science proves.

Many studies can ‘prove’ that two things are different. By definition, of course, men are different from women. But men and women also generally differ in affective response, spatial abilities, mathematical abilities, etc., qualities that may not be obvious from their physical differences alone. In this fashion, social science research ‘proved’ that segregation harmed black students in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). In a similar manner, we can distinguish between homosexual and conventional marriage by definition — one is same-sex, the other opposite-sex. But research also suggests these two entities appear to differ in average length of union, frequency of infidelity, length of fidelity, how well they raise kids, etc.

On the other hand, no set of social science studies can prove that two things are definitionally different but ‘the same’ in every other respect. In other words, that there is no difference other than name between them, a la Shakespeare (“a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”). This would include claims that “children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents” or that ‘men are functionally equivalent to women, so gender doesn’t count in parenting.’ Such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt because they are beyond our ability to prove them.
Read more »

Post Office Bars Mail Critical of Gays in Military as ‘Obscene’ and ‘Treasonable’

March 17, 2010

Colorado Springs, CO: You can’t send mail disagreeing with President Obama on gays in the military!

So Family Research Institute (FRI) discovered March 4. The Post Office refused to send FRI’s mail saying it was ‘obscene’ and ‘’incited forcible resistance against the government!’

The Post Office has rejected mail in the past, but never for both being obscene and inciting violence.’ So this FRI mailing becomes the nation’s first ‘two-fer.’ Read more »

President Barack Obama has called for repeal of the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces. As of February 2010, he has commissioned the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to find a suitable way to eliminate the ban, perhaps within the next year. FRI has published previous research indicating the problems associated with homosexuals serving in the military, based on surveys of veterans.¹ We have also critically examined the Humphrey-Studds study,² which set out to show that the military ban was unnecessary, but upon closer examination proved just the opposite.³

Despite the evidence, President Obama seems determined to get rid of DADT. But at what risk to the U.S. military? This report examines very recent data on sexual assault reports in the military, as compiled by the Department of Defense (DoD),⁴ as well as telling and relevant testimony from eyewitnesses who have served. None of the evidence suggests much has changed since DADT was enacted, or that there is any justification for removing the ban on open service in the military by homosexuals.
Read more »

A rebuttal to the accusation that Dr. Cameron was dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA)

-A reprint of an article in the Family Research Report, Nov-Dec, 1994.A number of attacks against Dr. Paul Cameron and Family Research Institute have appeared lately. While such attacks are not new, their volume and intensity is increasing even as the reach and importance of FRI grows.

The New Republic, a left-wing magazine with a circulation of 100,000 and a newly installed homosexual editor, Andrew Sullivan, attacked Dr. Paul Cameron with a two page article October 3,1994 (click here to view this article and resulting correspondence…). His reply and facsimiles of the key documents that were sent to The New Republic are included in this online rebuttal.

* Dr. Cameron was not “dropped” from the APA. The first document, dated November 7, 1982 is a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Cameron announcing his resignation from the APA. By this point, all previous disputes between him and the APA had been settled, and there were no other charges or inquiries into possible ethical violations pending against him. The last previous correspondence from the APA was dated October 18, 1982, reminding Cameron that it had closed his dispute with 6 U. Nebraska psychologists.

November 29, 1982 marked the APA President’s acceptance of Cameron’s resignation. In March 1983, the APA Monitor (the official internal organ of the APA) published Cameron’s letter detailing his reasons for resigning. As per the APA President’s request, this letter had been sent January 12, 1983.

A commentary on the March letter was published in June 1983 (click here…). Although Pietrzyk asserts that one cannot resign from the APA while under an ethics probe, this rings hollow considering that the APA President and APA Monitor did nothing to challenge Cameron’s decision to resign. Only after the accepted resignation did the ethics committee “drop” Cameron for non-cooperation (see December 2, 1983 letter). Most of this and considerably more was covered in exchanges between Dr. Cameron and various adversaries from the U. Nebraska between October 1985 and March 1986 in the Nebraska Medical Journal.

* On October 12, letters editor Amy Sheffer said that editor Sullivan had just told her to delete Cameron’s observation that “Scientists besides myself have noted the addiction to falsehood and deception that is characteristic of homosexuals. Why didn’t The New Republic reveal that your author is a member of a gay rights group?”

She said that since they had noted that Pietrzyk wrote for the Log Cabin Republicans, such a designation was unnecessary. FRI replied that this was deceptive since few knew that the Log Cabin Republicans was a gay rights group. The sentence was retained.

There are a number of criticisms raised in The New Republic article. Some appear plausible, and some have been picked up and repeated as gospel truth by nonhomosexual newspapers.

Addressing some of these:

* “he is the architect of unreliable ‘surveys’ that purport to show strains of violence and depravity in gay life.”

Response: Gays create myths for their political and psychological comfort. They want to be seen as “shocked by any claim that we are other than kind, gentle people.” One homosexual contends that “gays are an experiment by nature in an attempt to create a human nature more compatible with the requirements of civil society.”1

But the gay life is a life of violence and depravity:

– FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact at least once in their life. Such unhealthy and unsanitary practice is commonplace among homosexuals.

– 40% of 4,808 Canadian gays in 1991-1992 admitted to oral-anal sex in the last 3 months, according to a governmentfunded study run by gays representing the largest survey of homosexuals in Canada.3

– In the largest-ever study of homosexuals, completed just this year by The Advocate, the national weekly gay magazine, 13,000 readers responded to the questionnaire. The Advocate said that 45% of respondents “loved” anal/oral sex. Additionally, 20% said that they had engaged in bondage and discipline and 10% in sadomasochism in the past 5 years. And, most tellingly, among those who knew that they had the AIDS virus, “11% have said or implied that they were HIV-negative in order to have sex.” (8/23, p. 23)

FRI 2 found that about 13% of gays said that they had been raped, and a third had participated in sadomasochism.5

A study of 930 English gays asked whether they had ever been “sexually molested or raped?” 28% answered “yes.” In half (47%) of these cases the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total reported) “were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners.”

The authors of the English study (who appear to be homosexuals themselves) note that “Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the pleasure of ‘being taken;’ and the excitement of power-driven sex are very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the mainstays of collective sexual fantasies.” (p. 293)

* “Although thousands of heterosexuals allegedly responded to his survey, Cameron could get only 41 gay men and 24 lesbians to respond. The extremely small sample size should have invalidated any conclusions about the sexual behavior of the gay population.”

Response: There are two problems with this criticism: 1) Pietrzyk didn’t accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in our sample; 2) he fails to understand modern statistical sampling theory.2

We reported all our comparisons between those who were exclusively heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. We had approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison though, as in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question. Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations. The new U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its sample.6

The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that FRI, unlike Kinsey and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a tiny fraction of the population, they show up in small numbers in any survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of our results to “urban homosexuals-in-general,” at least for the time we did the survey.

Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But our findings, based on a random sample a twelfth the size of his, are far more apt to be representative of homosexuals-in-general. With more money and time, we would have drawn a larger sample and our results would be more certain still. Having said that, however, as the studies about gays accumulate, the parameters we published look “solid.”

For instance, we reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that they had been “raped.” The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape, per se. Instead it reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were “forced to do something sexually at some time.” (p. 223)4
9 In his counter reply, Pietrzyk says he’d “sure like to know the source for Cameron’s claim that ‘one third of American men have served in the Armed Forces.”‘

Response: On p. 343 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990, we find that over 27,000,000 men have served. Since there were under 79,000,000 men over the age of 18 in 1990, the math is straightforward.

We can only report what our respondents tell us. It is noteworthy that Pietrzyk considers “preposterous” that ” 13 percent have served time in prison.” Since FRI actually asked “Have you ever been jailed or imprisoned for a crime?” Pietrzyk demonstrates his inability to get the facts straight. By comparison, the U. Chicago sex survey6 reports that “about 13%” of its respondents (both men and women) had “ever spent the night in jail.” (p. 219) It actually asked if respondents had ever “spent one night or more” “in (a military jail), jail, prison, reform school or detention center.” (p. 612)

*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:

age	% men gay	% women lesbian
18-29	2.9	1.6
30-39	4.2	1.8
40-49	2.2	1.3
50-59	0.5	0.4

These results should have given the authors a clear warning that homosexuals were much less apt to be old, yet they chose not to comment. Our lifespan study offers a plausible reason for the paucity of older homosexuals in the U. Chicago study: they die young. Other explanations for these findings require much more convoluted logic. For example, note that the proportions of homosexuals do not top out in the youngest age group. Therefore, it would be difficult to attribute the distribution of findings solely to the growth of the gay movement. Another plausible explanation would be that older homosexuals simply drop out of the lifestyle (if they don’t die first). However, if proved true, this would simultaneously argue that gays can and do change, as well as suggest that the gay lifestyle offers scant long-term satisfaction.

*Pietrzyk repeatedly questions Dr. Cameron’s scholarly credentials and “conveniently” avoids using his professional title of “Dr.”

Response: Pietrzyk is a political science graduate student at George Washington University. He has failed numerous times to get his facts straight in this brief article in the New Republic. Dr. Cameron has published over 60 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has written several books. How does being a member of a gay club qualify Pietrzyk to engage in scholarly critique?

*Pietrzyk complains that we have analyzed only “sexual mass murder” and found homosexuals responsible for about half of these sprees.

Response: He doesn’t deny the facts about sexually- motivated murders, he merely tries to divert attention toward serial and other non-sexual mass murders.

*Pietrzyk claims that we have “distorted” the evidence for disproportionate child molestation by gays.

Response: He cites our 1987 pamphlet on child molestation. It was updated in 1993. With new information our estimate of the proportion of homosexuals has dropped from 4% to between “1% to 3%” and our estimate of the proportion of homosexual molestations to “between a fifth and a third.” Thus the relative proportion of homosexual molestation has remained about the same (“the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual”).

*Pietrzyk claims that Cameron advocated the “extermination of male homosexuals.”

Response: The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted in the same article as saying that such an idea is “not politically, ethically or socially acceptable” today. Where former Surgeon General Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron whether he advocated such a policy.

*Pietrzyk calls “extreme” and “absurdly high” FRI’s estimate that lesbians are “nineteen times more apt to have syphilis than straight women and four times more apt to have had scabies.”

Response: Pietrzyk finally has it right. That’s just what we reported in the Nebraska Medical Journal in 1985.7 We also p. 6 reported that lesbians were three times as apt to have had a genital discharge, and twice as apt to have sores on their genitals.

The new U. Chicago6 survey does not report its sexually transmitted disease findings for lesbians. However, it reports that lesbians had about 4 times as many sexual partners as heterosexual women, were considerably more apt to engage in 11 unusual sexual practices,” and that a larger number of partners was associated with higher STD rates. It is probable that it found essentially what we found but was reluctant to publish the findings. [see ‘New Sex Survey: Dishonest Science’ in this issue of Family Research Report]

*Pietrzyk calls our 1983 national sex survey “discredited.”

Response: Since results from the FRI survey have been published in a number of scientific journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn, it would appear that it is “discredited” by gay activists, not by scientists.

FRI’s sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the technique “works;” that is, whether FRI’s results stack-up against other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI’s results compare to the recent U. Chicago effort?

FRI, in attempting to interview people from age 18 through the end of adulthood, ran into a buzzsaw of high rejection rates in people aged 50 or above. Overall, almost half of our potential respondents refused to fill out our questionnaire. But the median age of those who rejected was 55, meaning we got high rates of compliance for those in their 20s and 30s and miserable rates of compliance for those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

The lore that has developed from doing Gallup polls and similar surveys is “those who don’t respond are generally much like those who do.” So FRI reported its rejection-rate and then ignored the nonresponders when reporting results – just as the U. Chicago study did. We assumed that a person who initially rejected the survey would not be worth the effort and cost of a follow-up appeal. So we put our limited resources (about $100,000) toward fattening the size of the sample rather than re-visiting rejecters. All told, we got usable responses from almost 5,200 adults.

U. Chicago paid its respondents $25 to $35 apiece and apparently repeatedly called-back its rejecters, offering them more money to get them to cooperate. It got almost 3,200 adults for $2,400,000. Still, 20% of their respondents refused to take the survey though offered considerable sums of money. So their findings, like ours, could be way off if those who rejected were quite different from those who cooperated. No one will ever know. But since they found “no relation between respondent fee [up to $100] and quality of the information provided” (p. 56), it fits the model that such pursuit is probably unwarranted.

Beside detail about sampling theories, what proof emerges from the empirical pudding? How do the results of these two surveys, one greased with high levels of effort on the part of a few highly-trained and closely supervised interviewers while essentially ignoring refusals, the other with over 200 interviewers and the willingness to expend significant time and money to reduce the rejection rate, compare? They were very close. 6,7

Where both surveys asked similar questions, similar point estimates were generated. Comparing the two samples:

– ever syphilis in life?
FRI men – 2.4%, women – 0.9%
U C men – 0.9%, women – 0.7%.

– ever gonorrhea in life?
FRI men – 11.2%, women – 3.7%
U C men – 9%, women – 4.7%

– ever genital warts in life?
FRI men 5.0%, women – 4.3%
U C men 3.3%, women – 5.9%

– ever hepatitis in life?
FRI men – 3.6%, women – 2.4%
U C men – 1.3%, women – 0.9%

The lower figures on hepatitis for the U. Chicago study may be related to their claim that “hepatitis A is not sexually transmitted but hepatitis B is.” Subsequently they “eliminated the cases that were evidently type A from the counts.” (p. 380) More generally, the FRI study was only done in urban areas compared to the broader geographic coverage of the U. Chicago study. Still, examination of the unweighted comparisons above suggests that all the differences were within one or two percentage points.

Furthermore, about 21% of FRI females reported having “obtained an abortion” while 19% of the U. Chicago women said that they had ever “had an abortion.” (p. 457)

9% of gays and 5% of lesbians in the U. Chicago effort reported that they were heterosexual virgins. (p. 311) 8% of FRI’s gays and 5% of our lesbians reported that they were heterosexual virgins. Since few homosexuals in either survey were over age 50, where rejecters became a significant problem, we could expect high levels of agreement between both methodologies.

*Associated Press: The AP article (click here to view…) was carried by the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph on 9/16/94. FRI called AP on 10/12 about the falsehoods that Cameron: 1), “is barred from practicing psychology in Nebraska” and 2) had falsified data about homosexuals. AP was faxed a copy of Cameron’s license and a copy of the Bangor Daily News correction (see above). The Gazette Telegraph published the AP correction on 10/26/94 after FRI informed it of its existence.

* The Advocate wrote on 11/1/94 that “Cameron, who contends that gays and lesbians are sexual deviants, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 for falsifying research data about gays. He was also barred from practicing in Nebraska, the only state in which he had been licensed.” (p. 16)

* The Bangor Daily News, 10/10/90, had the following as part of its story of a Cameron visit to Maine: “The APA, however, said that Cameron was dropped from the membership because of a violation of the APA’s code of ethics involving the misuse of colleagues’ research.” It published the correction. Maine has a constitution which permits suits for libel irrespective of their proven economic impact. Newspapers in Maine publish corrections with dispatch.

References: 1. Harry J. (1982) Gay children grown up. NY: Praeger, p. 168. 2. Cameron P, Cameron K., & Proctor, K. (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Reports, 64, 1167-1179. 3. Doing it in the 90s. Canadian AIDS Society, May 1993.4. Michael, RT, Gagnon, JH, Laumann, EO, & Kolata G. (1994) NY:Little, Brown. 5. Hickson, F.C.I., et al. (1994) Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294. 6. Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: U. Chicago Press. 7. Cameron, P, et al. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.