• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas GOP Platform Advocates Criminalizing Gay Marriage, Banning Strip Clubs...

The APA was foreced to accept the gay agenda due to political reasons. If you reject Cameron then you must also reject them.

He didn't get kicked out for not agreeing with them. He got kicked out because he violated their Ethical Principles. Besides the studies that he uses don't say what he was saying.
 
Not every Texan agree with the extremist of the Texan Republican party, since as a person who was born in Houston Texas, and lives in Humble Texas I say they are ****en nuts to think that they are going to ban strip club with out a fight. Since Strip club are part of the GDP of Texas.
 
Genetic Fallacy

Something to help you understand how things work. You present credible evidence to back a source. Discounting a source based on a history of bias is not a genetic fallacy. The idea is not being discounted because of the source, it is being discounted because you have presented zero credible evidence to support the idea.
 
The author of that article is not reliable:

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9

1Biographical information obtained from various sources, including Cameron's curriculum vitae, Who's Who in the West, 26th Edition, 25th Edition; Who's Who in America, 52nd Edition, 51st Edition, 50th Edition. (return to text)

2Walter, D. (1985, October 29). Paul Cameron. The Advocate, pp. 28-33. (return to text)

3Fettner, A.G. (1985, September 23). The evil that men do. New York Native, pp. 23-24. (return to text)

4Pietrzyk, M.E. (1994, October 3). Queer science: Paul Cameron, professional sham. The New Republic, pp. 10-12. (return to text)

5Notice: Persons dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association. (1984). Internal communication from APA to all members. (return to text)

6The full NPA resolution read as follows:

The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.

[Nebraska Psychological Association. (1984, October 19). Resolution. Minutes of the Nebraska Psychological Association. Omaha, Nebraska: Author.] (return to text)

7A copy of the full ASA resolution in Acrobat PDF format can be downloaded. It read as follows:

WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron, a psychologist, was dropped from membership in The American Psychological Association for violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists;

WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has been presented in the media as a sociologist;

WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism;

WHEREAS Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research;

WHEREAS the American Sociological Association is on record as opposing oppressive actions against lesbians and gay men and affirming its commitment to their civil rights;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Association reaffirms its opposition to efforts to undermine the civil rights of lesbians and gay men through the distortion of sociological concepts and the falsifying of sociological research; and

THAT the Association articulates this opposition by charging the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology with the task of critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron.

[Sociology group criticizes work of Paul Cameron. (1985, September 10). Lincoln (NE) Star.] (return to text)

8 The ASA Task Force findings were described in ASA Footnotes (January, 1987, p. 4). The final resolution and the committee report were published in ASA Footnotes (February, 1987, page 14). Available from the American Sociological Association, Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, 1722 N Street, NW, Washington DC 20036. (202) 833-3410. (return to text)

9On page 536 of his opinion, Judge Buchmeyer noted the following examples of misrepresentations by Cameron to the Court:

"(i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies – which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data – and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)"

[Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985).] (return to text)

Paul Cameron Bio and Fact Sheet

Your source has no merit. Not even a court of law buys Cameron's BS.

Link to evidence please.

Why it is a good idea to read the thread.
 
Why it is a good idea to read the thread.

The judge himself is not credible, since in his decision he writes that "To seriously contend that a difference in "expert" opinions constitutes fraud and misrepresentation is ridiculous", then goes onto label Cameron as a fraud because his expert testimony conflicts with other experts. :lol:
 
Something to help you understand how things work. You present credible evidence to back a source. Discounting a source based on a history of bias is not a genetic fallacy. The idea is not being discounted because of the source, it is being discounted because you have presented zero credible evidence to support the idea.

And you have attacked the source, not the findings.
 
And you have attacked the source, not the findings.

What you do not understand. The idea is not being rejected because of the source. Your backing for the idea is being rejected. Since you have not offered any credible backing for your claim, and since the burden of proof is on you, the claim is unsubstantiated.
 
What you do not understand. The idea is not being rejected because of the source. Your backing for the idea is being rejected. Since you have not offered any credible backing for your claim, and since the burden of proof is on you, the claim is unsubstantiated.

Circular argument.
 
Circular argument.

Do you have a book with the terms of the different types of argument fallacies and throw them out at various times? Seriously. If the source isn't credible, why on earth would the findings be credible?
 
You tried that already.

Actually, he already succeeded in that. What was tried is to pass off a shoddy piece of work as a legit source. Let's take a quick look at your source, only going 4 paragraphs in to find the fatal flaw. I would take it apart totally, but I got to make dinner soon.

My source: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

From your source:

In 1983, a probability survey of the sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7% of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 134 (i.e., 30% was homosexual).

Wow, with footnotes to prove it and everything. That is pretty damning...oh wait, there is a problem there, and it lies in the bolded part.

Now drawing from my source:

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

So, according to my source, calling male/male molestation "homosexual" is inaccurate. Now why would it say that...well, let's look further:

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

What all this is saying is that pedophiles(and hebophiles) are not gay. What the article does explain is that in a large number of child molesters, their primary sexual attraction is to children, not male or female. What this all means is that using the number of male/male incidence of child molesting as evidence gays are more likely to be child molesters is false. In other words, your whole source has fallen apart within 4 paragraphs.

Now tell me what logical fallacy this is.
 
Do you have a book with the terms of the different types of argument fallacies and throw them out at various times? Seriously. If the source isn't credible, why on earth would the findings be credible?

It isn't even that. If you were to read the source the two that have percentages aren't even in the 50's. So how can anyone say that most homosexuals commit child molestation.
 
It isn't even that. If you were to read the source the two that have percentages aren't even in the 50's. So how can anyone say that most homosexuals commit child molestation.

Well, it's propaganda plain and simple. Homophobes have been trying to tie homosexuality to pedophilia for years.
 
Circular argument.

Again, no. To support an idea, you need evidence. You have failed to provide any credible evidence to back your idea. Therefore it is not a logical fallacy of any type to reject your claim.
 
Do you have a book with the terms of the different types of argument fallacies and throw them out at various times? Seriously. If the source isn't credible, why on earth would the findings be credible?
The argment is circular, that ad hom doesn't change that.
 
Oh good lord...putting off making dinner cuz I am being lazy, so randomly checking "facts" from SM's link. Holy **** it's hilarious. A quote from the blog SM linked to prove his case:

Drs Freund and Heasman (9) of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles.

Now, let's look at Dr Freund's own words:

Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.”

And...

In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli. He (Freund) later described {in 1992} as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.

I might do more later, but I think the notion that the blog that SM linked as proof is anything but proof, except maybe that Paul Cameron is an idiot.

Edit: oh, and source for above quotes: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Oh good lord...putting off making dinner cuz I am being lazy, so randomly checking "facts" from SM's link. Holy **** it's hilarious. A quote from the blog SM linked to prove his case:



Now, let's look at Dr Freund's own words:



And...



I might do more later, but I think the notion that the blog that SM linked as proof is anything but proof, except maybe that Paul Cameron is an idiot.

Edit: oh, and source for above quotes: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf

Let me play too:

The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

Obvious code words for the liberal agenda, therefore anything on that site can be discounted as propaganda.
 
Obvious code words for the liberal agenda, therefore anything on that site can be discounted as propaganda.

Wait a second here are you actually attacking the source? Something you have accused others of doing myself included. At least I provided why the source, Cameron, was BS. You need to do the same to have any kind of respect.
 
Let me play too:



Obvious code words for the liberal agenda, therefore anything on that site can be discounted as propaganda.

So that is one of three sources provided in this thread to counter your source. The best part is though, that we can throw out both your and my source, and we get back to the original thing...prove your claim "Its a well established fact that gays are more likely to be pedos."
 
Last edited:
Hey look, actual data from an actual study, not a blog or reference to a study: SpringerLink - Journal Article

A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

So whenever you are ready to try and prove your claim, we are ready for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom