Home ›

Paul Cameron

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Family Research Institute: 'Where Gays Cluster, Boys Suffer'

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on January 12, 2012 - 10:57am

Under Chairman Paul Cameron, the mission of the Family Research Institute is "to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse."

The "research" produced by FRI has been widely discredited by social scientists and earned the organization a designation as an anti-gay hate group from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but is nonetheless routninely cited by other anti-gay Religious Right organizations.

Yesterday, FRI released its latest "scholarly" investigation into how the education and entertainment industries are "disproportionately populated by homosexuals and are in the midst of boy-molesting scandals" ... which can all be traced back to the introduction of the birth control pill:

Universities have a preponderance of heterosexuals. But, the perhaps 8% or so of employees who practice homosexuality are responsible for the great bulk of the child molestations! Everyone knows that homosexuals go ‘where the boys are.’ Thus the Boy Scouts and Catholic Priest scandals. But the University and Hollywood scandals exhibit another rule — ‘where gays cluster, boys suffer.’

Everyone knows ‘the pill’ freed heterosexuals from social control — but it also (indirectly) freed those who practice homosexuality. Before the 1960’s, ‘everyone’ had to conform to a norm that guaranteed a future — each citizen was responsible to get married and produce children. This social milieu was self-reinforcing: ‘If I must be disciplined in my sex life, then everybody else should be as well!’ Thus the citizenry generally worked to suppress those with deviant sexual habits.

But that changed radically with the invention of ‘the pill.’ Shielded by the anonymity of modern life, the pill assured that those with heterosexual tastes could live their sex lives almost free from social discipline. Pregnancies would no longer reveal your liaisons, and no one knew whether you were childless by fate or choice. Good news for homosexuals, because if heterosexuals could ‘do whatever they wanted’ sexually, the notion of fairness inevitably pushed heterosexuals to agree with ‘why punish those with other harmless sexual tastes?’

Of course, ‘harmless’ is the operative word. Is homosexuality indeed harmless?

Evangelizing for homosexuality, the entertainment industry (joining the psychiatric professions) began to flood the media with the message that ‘homosexuality is different, yet harmless.’ Hollywood asserted that homosexual practitioners were just as stable, just as worthy of marriage, just as worthy of parenthood, etc. The combination of these two new realities — the pill and Hollywood promotion of homosexuality — is the key to understanding where we are today.

PFAW
Filed under:

The Good Old Days When Everyone Knew That Even "One Homosexual Can Pollute a Government Office"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on November 10, 2010 - 3:25pm

Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute want to go back to the good ol' days of the 1950s when gays were banned for working for the government because everybody knew that even "one homosexual can pollute a Government office":

Today the courts are talking about the ‘right’ to engage in homosexuality, the ‘right’ of homosexuals to get married to each other, the ‘right’ to openly join the military, etc. Political candidates are afraid of appearing ‘homophobic.’ But 60 years ago, even 35 years ago, the U.S. had it right. Then, engaging in same-sex sex was NOT considered a ‘right.’ Indeed, those who engaged in homosexuality were seen as highly socially disruptive, due to a lengthy, and empirically-tested, set of reasons. In 1950, Congress discussed the Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government:

Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office. 

Notice what the investigation found concerning employees who engaged in homosexuality. Homosexuals were not disqualified from government service because they were ‘mentally ill.’ At the time, of course, those who engaged in homosexuality were often referred to psychiatrists for ‘treatment.’ Yet for society in general and the federal government in particular, the overriding exclusionary factor was the social disruption that homosexuals caused. This official investigation found that homosexuals:

  • “frequently” “attempted to entice normal individuals to engage” in homosexuality. The ‘try it, you might like it’ slogan has been around a long time. Instances of male homosexuals enticing and seducing boys abounded then, as they do today.
  • particularly targeted the “young and impressionable.” The homosexually-obsessed have both drive and commitment — especially when it comes to the young or younger.

Based on these facts, the report recommended the following policy:

Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government.

The report also observed that “one homosexual can pollute a Government office.” Not that ‘every homosexual’ polluted his Government office, but rather “one can.” Most anyone who has worked in a business is familiar with at least once such circumstance. What is striking here is that there is no ‘animus,’ no ‘hatred,’ and no appeal to Christianity or any religious notions — just a statement of the facts and a reasonable social policy conclusion given those facts.

PFAW
Filed under:

Oops

Submitted by Anonymous on May 22, 2007 - 5:08pm

In an article about gays adopting, the San Francisco Chronicle included this unusual passage, citing far-Right anti-gay “expert” Paul Cameron (via Americablog):

Focus on the Family's objection to same-sex parents is grounded in interpretation of biblical scripture and research by Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado. Cameron says gays and lesbians are unfit parents, are more likely to molest children of their same sex, switch partners frequently, have shorter life expectancies and cause their children embarrassment and social difficulties.

"Any child that can be adopted into a married-mother-and-father family, that's the gold standard," Cameron said. "An orphanage would be the second choice, and then a single woman."

Apparently the newspaper heard from its readers, as it has posted this clarification:

CLARIFICATION: In an article about San Francisco's campaign to get more gays and lesbians to adopt foster children - as well as an opposing evangelical campaign to get more Christian families to adopt -- the Chronicle quoted Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute. The article should have noted that Cameron, who believes gays make unfit parents and self-published dozens of articles he said were based on his research, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 when he refused to subject his work to peer review. The article also should have reported that his Family Research Institute was named a hate group in 2006 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

PFAW
Filed under:

Cheney “Being Cruel to Her Child” Simply By Having It

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on December 8, 2006 - 2:56pm

Virulent homophobe and crackpot anti-gay “researcher” Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute weighs in on the news that Mary Cheney and her partner are expecting a child.  

It’ll come as no surprise that Cameron is not exactly wishing the couple well

"By this selfish action, Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child: 
 

  • Mary, 37, is currently 'partnered' with Heather Poe, 45. The median age of death for lesbians is around the late 50's. If Poe and Cheney stay together, odds are this child will lose at least one caretaker before graduating high school.
  • Children of homosexuals testify that day-to-day living is more difficult – and they are more apt to report personal disturbance as a consequence.
  • A high proportion of lesbian 'partnerings' break apart -- with custody issues haunting the child for the rest of his life.
  • The child will disproportionately associate with homosexuals – who are as a class considerably more apt to have STDs and a criminal history, be interested in sex with children, involved in substance abuse, etc.
  • The child will have a much higher probability of learning homosexual tastes (at least a third of lesbian's children adopt homosexuality).

    • If Cameron had his way, he’d probably have Cheney and her partner arrested for child endangerment for simply daring to have a child in the first place.   

    PFAW
    Filed under:

    Right wing responds to Foley scandal by scapegoating gays

    Submitted by Anonymous on October 3, 2006 - 3:49pm

    Some right wing leaders are responding to the congressional page scandal by attempting to shift blame onto gay Americans and making the patently false claim that gays are disproportionately likely to commit child sexual abuse.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, no stranger to ethics problems, and certainly not someone who should be speaking on behalf of family values, got the ball rolling on Fox News Sunday when he tried to excuse Republican leaders’ failure to protect minors serving as congressional pages. Gingrich argued that inappropriate e-mails in which Congressman Mark Foley asked a 16-year-old former page for his photo “were relatively innocuous.” Then he tried to turn the tables and blame the Republican leaders’ inaction on gays: “I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would also have been accused of gay bashing,” Gingrich said, “because it was a male-male relationship.”

    That’s right. According to Newt Gingrich, the same Republican leaders who want to write anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, who have a collective rating of zero on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard, and who count some of the most bigoted anti-gay activists in the country among their core supporters are so scared of being accused of “gay bashing” that they’re rendered impotent when it comes to protecting vulnerable children. This line of reasoning may seem so preposterous that it could be taken as a bad joke, but it’s also apparently rather catchy.

    On Monday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins jumped on the bandwagon, trying to imply that the broader problem is that Congress is cowed by the awesome power of the LGBT lobby. “We need to get to the source of the problem,” he said on CNN. “What prevented the leadership from acting? Were they fearful of acting because they would be seen as homophobic or gay bashing?” Perkins continued, “It shouldn’t be totally surprising, when we hold up tolerance and diversity as the guideposts for public life, this is what you end up getting.“

    Perkins upped the ante in today’s San Francisco Chronicle by dismissing Foley’s wrongdoing and the failure of the House Republican leadership to do anything about it, and asserting instead that “the real issue” in the page scandal “is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.”

    Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription required) about the scandal echoed Gingrich’s and Perkins’ assertions:

    “In today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters?”

    The implication here—an assertion about which Perkins was more explicit—is that there is a tie between homosexuality and child molestation. To be clear, that assertion is patently false. As Robert Geffner, the editor of The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, told USA Today, several studies find that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest kids. Indeed, the most prominent “academic” claiming that there is a correlation between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, Paul Cameron, is clearly more interested in demonizing gays than doing legitimate research, as he’s argued in the past that “the extermination of homosexuals” should be considered.

    Maybe instead of attacking gay people, far-right leaders should ask a more obvious question: Why did top Republican leaders in the House decide to protect their own political power when they could have protected children?

    PFAW
    Filed under:
    Syndicate content