I’m not biased against anybody. You’ve admitted to having a bias against Christians who don’t even fit into the discussion. Your attempts to denigrate those who disagree with you demonstrate the weakness of your position.

You wrote:

You lose.

If you say so.

Many people allow their political and personal beliefs to trump science. That you continue to defend Dr. Hooker and her study, which you admitted was flawed, demonstrates the truth of that statement. And you continue to misrepresent, obfuscate, assume and infer incorrectly.

The Mattachine Society provided Dr. Hooker the biased sample she needed to promote her agenda. Apparently valid samples aren’t necessary when Dr. Hooker’s agenda fits your bias. You ask “Where else would she find gays to participate in a study”. Science would respond: “From a valid sample, Mr Martin, from a valid sample.”

I wrote: “I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.”

You responded:

Then you are an idiot. (Fortunately, I don’t think you mean that.)

Why thank you. Once again you assumed incorrectly. I much prefer looking up original sources and talking to as many experts as possible. According to you that makes me an idiot. Thank you.

I wrote: “The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.”

You responded:

HOWEVER – there was a BODY of evidence in journals and other scientific publications that ALL of the members had access to and were aware of (or at least should have been aware of…

You are assuming here again and that “however” speaks volumes. You’ve railed on and on about the plethora of studies used by the APA in their 1973 decision. It turns out as I’ve been saying all along, that you had no idea what you were talking about the entire discussion. Four flawed sources were used in Spitzer’s presentation which was the rationale behind the 1973 decision.

You wrote:

Just because you don’t understand [same-sex-attraction] – doesn’t mean it is all that complex.

That very well may be true, but that doesn’t mean same-sex attraction isn’t complex. It is very complex.

You wrote:

IF (and that’s a big “if”) [homosexuals] live shorter lives… so what? That doesn’t effect you one iota.

I can’t believe you said that. Have you no heart? If homosexuals live shorter lives that does indeed effect me. It grieves my spirit, my heart, the center of my being.

You wrote:

As for spreading homosexuality – or “encouraging” it – where the hell does that happen at?

I’m so glad you asked. There’s a group called GLSEN that promotes and encourages homosexuality in schools today. They handed out a questionaire with one question asking: “How do you know you wouldn’t like homosexual sex if you haven’t tried it?”

Donna Minkowitz wrote an article entitled Recruit, Recruit, Recruit in the Advocate
“It’s time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on Earth… Maybe you didn’t choose to be gay – that’s fine. But I did.”

At the City Council meeting October 2, 1980, Davis, California, Minkowitz said:

“We finally realize that recruitment is the only answer…lesbian goals must be to recruit more lesbians.”

Minkowitz claimed the best demonstration she had ever seen in her movement was outside the Republican convention in Houston: “Queer Nationals from around the country chanted, ‘Ten percent is not enough! Recruit, recruit, recruit!’”

Apparently Minkowitz believed the 10% myth.

Lesbian author Tammy Bruce who wrote The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (another book I own) and co-author of The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds said:

“I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today..

Two years ago GLSEN handed out “The Little Black Book–Queer In The 21st Century” to children at Brookline High School. Regarding this book, Dr John Diggs, author of The Health Risks of Gay Sex said:

Clearly this material, which appears to have the endorsement of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is barely fit for consumption by swine, much less the youth of the Commonwealth.

Click this link and read the book that was given to children, Mr. Martin, if you have the stomach for it.

Read what Warren Throckmorton wrote about it here: GLSEN Allows Pornographic Material to Be Distributed at School Event

Read a confidentiality agreement given to students at Deerfield High School before listening to a panel discussion by gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered students. The class was mandatory. What are they hiding that they don’t want students talking to their parents about? In reference to this topic, read District gags 14-year-olds after ‘gay’ indoctrination

In Michael Swift’s Gay Manifesto he writes:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms…

Then there’s the entire David Parker situation in Lexington, MA where Mr. Parker wanted to opt his 6-year-old out of classes on homosexuality. The school refuses to notify parents when children in kindergarten are exposed to the more adult topic of homosexuality.

You asked.

Perhaps you should read Nightmare at Franklin.

Out of concern for his family, Robert Spitzer had to cancel a speaking engagement at the National Press Club. Radical homosexual activists gave him cause for alarm so he cancelled due to fear of his family. An email by James Minter, Associate Director at Columbia University reads:

You are an embarrassment to the University and a disgrace to science. Your “findings” are, in a word, despicable.

Mr. Minter was referring to Spitzer’s report that homosexuals can change their orientation. Apparently Mr. Minter feels threatened. Perhaps you and Mr. Minter should checkout: Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences.

Changing Minds is always an informative read.

There is no scientific evidence that anybody is born homosexual. As a blogger once said:

There is no genetic test or procedure (experimental or otherwise) that can determine one’s sexual orientation. When people claim to be gay and we believe them, what we’re really doing is taking them at their word. We believe their claim, we believe their testimony and we believe their declaration that they are gay.

But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when one claims to be ex-gay. They don’t believe the ex-gay claim, they don’t believe the ex-gay testimony nor their declaration that they are ex-gay.

When somebody uses a certain standard to measure the credibility of what one group says, but then refuses to use the same standard to measure the credibility of what another group says—thereby ignoring the claims of the second group (ex-gays)—he should ask himself why he believes one group and not the other… This is a double standard.

Summarizing from the CDC in 2003, 2004 and 2005, homosexuality is anything but healthy.

You wrote:

As for you, Mr. Mills, you are a bigot, pretty much by definition.

Why thank you. I’m for client autonomy. That is, if somebody is struggling with same-sex attaction and wants help then they should have that opportunity, especially considering the growing ex-gay population.

Ex-gays exist. LUGs (Lesbian Until Graduation), those who admit to choosing homosexuality (Queer By Choice), Hasbians, and bug chasers exist. Science must include this group and not ignore them due to politics.

You continued another non-related rant and ended with:

Leave people alone Mr. Mills. Let them live their lives and you live yours. All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection. No one can really debate that, sir. It is pretty self-evident.

You apparently can’t help but misrepresent my position. If somebody struggles with same-sex attaction and wants help then they should have that opportunity. People are attracted to members of their same-sex, of that there is no doubt. What science has shown is environment is a key factor in same-sex attraction. Science has yet to find a gay gene or any physical reason for same-sex attracion. No one can debate that with any credibility, sir.

I’m a bigot and advocate for the truth, Mr. Martin.

“The issue as I see it with the APA and Cameron is the APA was engaging in some very strange activity when they officially dropped him when he wasn’t a member.”

The APA was NOT engaging in “strange” activity at all. Let’s try this as a step by step process and see where your understanding breaks down.

1) Dr. Cameron accepted and agreed to abide by the APA charter when he became a member. Do you understand that?

2) Becoming a member of a professional organization is a privilege and it requires it’s members to uphold certain ethical standards. Do you understand that?

3) If you are accused of ethical violations – an investigation will take place – and you are required to cooperate with that investigation. Do you understand that.

4) You can “quit” after being accused of ethical improprieties – but the organization can, and will, still investigate any charges made against you while you were a member and – if they find you guilty – they will punish you. Do you understand that?

5) The most severe punishment that a professional organization can direct at it’s members is to “drop” them as a member / refuse to allow them to become a member of their organization. Do you understand that?

6) Dr. Cameron was accused of ethical violations in Febreuary of 1982. Do you understand that?

7) Dr. Cameron was notified of those charges. Do you understand that?
Dr. Cameron then resigned in November of 1982. His resignation was accepted and he was given the opportunity to explain why he resigned. Do you understand that?

9) The APA continued its investigation into the charges made against him because that is what their charter requires them to do. Do you understand that?

10) The APA repeatedly asked for Dr. Cameron’s cooperation but he refused to cooperate. Do you understand that?

11) So in December of 1983 – after over a year of non-cooperation by Dr. Cameron – according to the rules of membership that Dr. Cameron agreed to when he became a member – Dr. Cameron was officially “dropped” from the APA. Do you understand that?

12) I think maybe you don’t understand the word “dropped”. It means to terminate an association. The APA had a relationship with Dr. Cameron – even after he resigned. He was (by virtue of holding a valid PhD) STILL automatically eligible for membership in the APA – even though he had quit.

So maybe it will be better for you if you think of being “dropped” by a professional organization – as meaning simply that you are no longer eligible for membership in that organization. The APA “dropped” him from eligibility and further told him that he could not reapply for membership for at least 5 years.

Do you understand that?

So, please, I’ve tried my best to break this down as simply as I could for you. I even went over it with my 13 year old and he understood it – if you still don’t understand what happened please just write out which part don’t you understand.

You came into this discussion claiming that,

“[Dr. Cameron] was investigated for violations, cleared, and then resigned in good standing. After getting cleared and turning in his resignation letter, the APA president didn’t understand his resignation, for he was cleared and wasn’t asked to resign.”

That is what we politely refer to as an “alternate reality”. You were wrong and you have yet to admit to any error.

When facts are inconvenient for you; you claim, “I’m simply not interested.” In a debate – or in logic – if information is presented against your case and you fail to refute it – then you lose.

You lose.

Your lack of interest in facts that are inconvenient for you – explains why you have come to some bizarre beliefs.

Dr. Cameron has a history of unethical behavior. He has been censured and reprimanded by several professional organizations. In the scientific world – that is a big deal. Now – I didn’t ask you to defend the guy – you jumped in and did it all on your own, claiming that Dr. Cameron was the victim of a homosexual “witch hunt”.

It was not a “witch hunt”. Dr. Cameron presents himself as a scientist. His scientific credentials are fair game to discuss. Period.

Dr. Cameron’s scientific credentials are bad. He has a history of ethical violations, shoddy research habits, and misuse of other’s work…

Now – logically, as I claimed in my fist post, that doesn’t necessarily mean that his research is automatically “wrong” – it simply means that it needs to be looked at skeptically.

Looking at his work skeptically – Dr. Cameron is a moron. He claimed that by averaging the age of obituaries he found in gay newspapers – he could determine the life expectancy of a group of individuals.

That’s bad science.

As for Dr. Hooker – who you DON’T support.

She has a long distinguished scientific record. She won many, many prestigious awards in her lifetime and was highly praised by the scientific community. She also studied homosexuality back in the 1950’s – when it was HIGHLY unpopular to do so. Her work was vehemently attacked when it came out – and yet it withstood all scientific challenges. That’s why it is still quoted to this day.

Why do you believe a discredited scientist over a highly regarded one?

The word that comes to my mind is “bigotry”.

So let’s look at your post point by point.

“Dr. Hooker leaned to the left of most leftists. And as we’ve seen with some scientists, political bias tends to trump science with those pushing an agenda.”

The ONLY person who we have seen ANY evidence of allowing their political beliefs to trump science is Dr. Cameron. He uses obviously flawed research methodology, unethical principles (claiming to be peer reviewed and such), and he has been censured by SEVERAL scientific bodies… to further his anti-homosexual agenda.

You have shown NOTHING that supports that charge regarding Dr. Hooker. Her research has been upheld under intense scrutiny and when she died she was herlded for her courage and bravery in her pursuit of scientific excellence.

The only claim against her character you made – was not that she falsified research or used unethical methodology – but rather that she befriended a homosexual. Gasp!

Oh, and that she is, “left of most leftists” – whatever the hell that means. Logically it means nothing. Show me how she skewed her research if you have such a claim. Otherwise – her research and conclusions stand.

You quote from her research thanking the Mattachine Society – which in the 1950’s was one of a very few organizations that was openly gay. Where else would she find gays to participate in a study. Of course she thanked them for helping her.

What you don’t understand was the point of her studies. It rings very untrue – that you ever looked seriously at her work – because you simply don’t get it.
The study wasn’t looking at homosexuals. The study was looking at science.

Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.

Let me repeat that – it’s important:

Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.

One more time – please try to grasp the concept:

Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.

In other words – there was no real difference between the two groups from a psychological testing point of view. That is true to this day. Matched for age, IQ and education a homosexual will score within the same range on a psychological evaluation as a heterosexual.

Do you understand that?

Moving on, “I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.”

Then you are an idiot. (Fortunately, I don’t think you mean that.)

If that was the case – you would accept the word of first year medical student over that of world-renowned specialist. Would you really take the word of a doctor who was kicked out of the AMA over a doctor who had a sterling reputation amongst his peers? Somehow I just don’t think so – but like I said, if that is the case, then you ARE an idiot.

“The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.”

HOWEVER – there was a BODY of evidence in journals and other scientific publications that ALL of the members had access to and were aware of (or at least should have been aware of) , You act as if these people lived in a vacuum and never read a professional journal before. These are highly educated people – who understood the subject matter – honestly much better than you do.

“It’s an extremely complex issue, so perhaps we shouldn’t encourage homosexual behavior in today’s youth or any age until we have a better grasp on the science behind same-sex attraction.”

Just because you don’t understand it – doesn’t mean it is all that complex. It really doesn’t matter WHY some men are attracted to other men. They have a right to exist and enjoy life as much as anyone else. I don’t understand WHY anyone with an IQ over 50 would believe in Jesus… are you folks BORN that way, were you raised that way, did you just go nuts one day after daddy beat you? It doesn’t matter WHY… you made a choice, or you didn’t have a choice… none of that really matters to me. You are who you are. I can co-exist with you and let you live your life in peace, even if I disagree with you. You get to marry and enjoy life without groups trying to limit your freedoms – I say let homosexuals have the same choices.

IF (and that’s a big “if) they live shorter lives… so what. That doesn’t effect you one iota.

As for spreading homosexuality – or “encouraging” it – where the hell does that happen at?

I’ve never had a homosexual come to my door and try to convert me to believing in their fantasies. I don’t see billboards everyday – or buildings on every other street corner – proclaiming, “Come in and be Gay”. I don’t see a list of 10 reasons to be Gay being carved into marble and forced into a courthouse square… when homosexuals start doing those things – THEN, I will oppose gays as much as I currently oppose Christians.

Until then, the most obnoxious people I have ever met are right-wingers who try to enforce their moral choices on others. They are the ones who need to be stopped in my opinion.

As for you, Mr. Mills, you are a bigot, pretty much by definition.

It’s okay – I am a bigot as well.

We all dislike one group or another I suspect based on religion or race or sexual preference. We all have prejudices. The trick, and I suspect the difference between us, is that I don’t care how you live your life as long as you stay out of mine. I give you that freedom, and I demand from you that you return the same freedom to me.

I debate people like you to help protect the weakest groups. Why? Because, if people like you get your way, you will prevent gays from marrying or being allowed to hold jobs or whatever stupid legislation you can pass… and that would be bad. You’ll take on another group after that. First it was blacks, then women, now gays… the religious nut-cases have always tried to make some group their bitch.

By the way, if you check out Dr. Cameron’s response to the APA – he rails on about the ERA too.

Leave people alone Mr. Mills. Let them live their lives and you live yours. All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection.

No one can really debate that, sir. It is pretty self-evident.

Part 5
Part 4

The first link is to additional comments from Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch and the second to my evaluation of the Cameron’s study.

As I said at the outset, I’m not that interested in Dr. Cameron and as I recently posted: “I don’t agree with Dr. Cameron on various issues.” Still, you cannot drop somebody from an organization when they are not a member in the first place. This is a very strange action by the APA.

I don’t fail to mention anything as you put it. I’m simply not interested. You appear to have incorrectly inferred or assumed something here that doesn’t exist. The issue as I see it with the APA and Cameron is the APA was engaging in some very strange activity when they officially dropped him when he wasn’t a member.

I found Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling from the NARTH website. At that link, Warren Throckmorton (who supposedly posted above) wrote:

“The reasons [the APA] recommended it was for political reasons, not for scientific reasons,”

It’s an interesting article on the APAs “plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.” Is it true the APA is bowing to political pressure? Was the APA bowing to political pressure when they engaged in the strange activity of dropping somebody from membership who wasn’t a member? Perhaps. From everything I’ve read it seems the APA could very well have been responding to political pressure in regards to Dr. Cameron. I certainly understand the need to follow through with an investigation.

You said because Dr. Cameron refused to cooperate with the investigation. From where does this information come? Did the APA contact Dr. Cameron after he resigned and ask him to cooperate in an investigation with an organization in which he wasn’t a member? Something doesn’t add up.

Dr. Hooker leaned to the left of most leftists. And as we’ve seen with some scientists, political bias tends to trump science with those pushing an agenda. This tells me to take a detailed look at everything which is why I try to verify information with first person accounts if at all possible. Sometimes this isn’t always possible but I do what I can.

Dr. Hooker befriended a homosexual man introduced to her by her husband. It was at this point that Dr. Hooker was studying rats when she started her project. As you keep digging and reading you should see she started with an agenda.

Of course Dr. Hooker didn’t work alone on her study. I even said she didn’t earlier. Still, it is Dr Hooker who is responsible for the final results of her study. It was Dr. Hooker who requested action that snowballed the study. You refer to this as the wild blue yonder. I suggest you keep digging as I have for years. From page 19 of the Hooker study:

The project would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance of the Mattachine Society, an organization which has as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society. The members of the Mattachine Society not only made themselves available as subjects but also persuaded their friends to become subjects. Because the heterosexuals were, for the most part, obtained from community organizations which must remain anonymous, I cannot describe further the way in which they were obtained.

If you do some digging you’ll find The Mattachine Society was an organization with an agenda. Dr. Hooker stated her project “would not have been possible” without them. What she did is called snowballing. It isn’t random and it blows the results out of proportion.

I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.

Regarding the APAs change, perhaps you should talk to people who were there. The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.

You wrote:

“Hardwired” is a very unscientific term regarding our behaviors and genetic predispositions. The truth is we simply do not understand enough at this time to say how much of a genetic role is involved in homosexuality.

I believe we agree. What we’ve seen up to this point is genetics plays a small part in same-sex attraction with environment playing a role as well. We don’t know everything but we do know environment plays a role. And since environment plays a role then perhaps we should stop and take a look at what’s happening in our culture today. Now, when I say genetics plays a small part that does not imply homosexuals are born that way which has been pushed on us and printed in the media for years. The genetics, the disposition, the traits and gifts are not causal, for, as Dr. Satinover says:

This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, “linkage” and “association” really means.

We have to look at all the available evidence and all the available evidence, including the existence of ex-gays, tells us homosexuals are not born that way as claimed in the various media outlets.

You wrote:

All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection.

Science cannot be led by political bias or political correctness and must include ex-gays, LUGs (Lesbian Until Graduation), those who admit to choosing homosexuality (Queer By Choice), Hasbians, people like Ann Heche, bug chasers, HIV infection rates, etc. It’s an extremely complex issue, so perhaps we shouldn’t encourage homosexual behavior in today’s youth or any age until we have a better grasp on the science behind same-sex attraction.

You should checkout the NARTH site in detail. That’s about all I have time for today.

I enjoy sparring with you. We certainly disagree with each other over this issue and a great deal more. I am sorry – again – for any “insults”.

As for Dr. Cameron, again, it is a simple matter of historical fact both acknowledged on his website and written about by his critics…

Dr. Cameron had complaints filed against him by APA members claiming that he had misrepresented their work in his studies. Dr. Cameron quit the APA after he found out that these claims had been filed and that the APA was going to investigate him for ethical violations. You can’t officially quit a professional organization while under investigation (it’s in their charter). Because Dr. Cameron was a member in good standing at the time he submitted a resignation letter – they accepted his resignation and asked him why he was resigning.

Then, the APA followed through with the investigation (That was what was required of them to do by their own charter) – and because Dr. Cameron refused to cooperate with the investigation – thirteen months later he was officially dropped for “ethical violations.”

His tactic was sort of like pleading “nolo contendere” in court… and it accomplished the typical result from such a plea. He was found “guilty”.

AGAIN – you fail to mention Dr. Cameron’s censure other repremands from OTHER scientific organizations. He has a record – and it shows shoddy work and ethical lapses.

He clearly abused ethics claiming to have “presented” a paper at the Eastern Psychological Association – when he basically paid to put a poster on the wall during a convention and even then pulled a “bait and switch” with the subject matter. (see: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/11/288)

Dr. Cameron’s faults are not a matter of “diplomacy” as you suggest – but of abusing science for a promotion of his anti-homosexual agenda.

“Dr. Hooker studied rats not humans.”

Dr. Hooker wrote about behavior in rats as a master thesis subject. Her study regarding sexuality was based on human subjects. My wife wrote a study on snake genetics before tackling her DMD program, I wrote a thesis on King Arthur before exploring human neurology.

You can’t dismiss Dr. Hooker’s research based on research she did earlier.

“Dr. Hooker had no experience interpreting the Rorschach test.”

Dr. Hooker didn’t need any experience in this field. Her study, was a double bind study. The scientists (Dr. Klopfer and Dr. Mortimer Meyer) who interpreted the Rorschach test results (from both homosexuals and heterosexuals) WERE experts in that field. (pg. 21; http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm)

What Hooker determined was that trained psychoanalysts were unable to tell the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals based on their own diagnostic tools.

“Dr. Hooker didn’t like the results of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) nor the Make a Picture Test (MAPS) results so she tossed the results and used the ROR results, which while having standard responses, is flawed and unreliable.”

You see – when you say things like that – I wonder where you get such information.

Like Dr. Cameron being “cleared” – that is just boldly factually inaccurate.

Here is a quote from Dr. Hooker’s Study (pg. 25; http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm):

“The MAPS was used in addition to the TAT because of the opportunity it gives the subject for the selection of figures together with backgrounds with different situational pulls of particular importance in this study.”

So unless we are talking about a different study – I do not understand how you can make the claim that she threw out those test results.

“Dr. Hooker created her own standards for the heterosexuals in the test.”

Again, factually inaccurate – Dr. Hooker matched heterosexuals to homosexuals based on age, IQ and education. This was necessary because so few admittedly homosexual men were available to study at the time.

“Dr. Hooker (and Kinsey) lacked a random sample. She snowballed the study. That is, she deliberately requested her associates to recruit both homosexual and heterosexual participants who understood the experiment. And this to obtain a political goal to change how society looked at homosexuals. She wrote about this a couple of years before she passed away. I believe it was 1993 in American Psychologist where she said: “I knew the men for whom the ratings were made, and I was certain as a clinician that they were relatively free of psycholopathology.” Three words summarize her study: agenda, agenda, agenda.”

And off you go into the wild blue yonder….

Dr. Hooker selected men she had interviewed who showed no signs of psychosis. She eliminated subjects who were in some sort of therapy (5 homosexuals & 5 heterosexuals)Previous studies on homosexuality had come from prison populations / mental wards which of course skewed any test results.

Dr. Hooker interviewed her test subjects beforehand to determine if they met the criteria of her study. That is a requirement to conduct such a study and so she eliminated heterosexuals who had reported having homosexual experiences in their past (4 people).

Basically – all she did – was simply pair up 60 people based on age, IQ, and education.

The subjects were tested not knowing which answers were “right” or “wrong” – the scientists who gave the tests did not know who the participants were.

This is all explained in her published work (pg. 20: http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm)

Which leads me to believe you have never looked at the “source” as you claimed you always do.

Yes. The test did have issues. Many scientists critiqued her work, and challenged it. It withstood the challenges – and was replicated using different methodologies and random samples – which is why it is cited so often.

Pretty much every test in the 1950’s had errors. This was the beginning of the usage of empirical studies in social sciences.

However, the bottom line is – follow-up tests (which I also linked to in post #41) corrected those problems and showed the same results as Dr. Hooker’s study.

AGAIN – you fail to acknowledge that.

“That’s off the top of my head. There is indeed more.”

So far you have incorrectly stated that MAPS and TAT were not used in Dr. Hookers conclusions – you implied that Dr. Hooker was not trained enough to do the study (’she studied “rats”‘) and that she had no expertise in looking at the Rorschach test – when she in fact had experts interpreting the results of that test. Then you went on a rant screaming about some “agenda” without showing ANY evidence of such.

If you have more please list it – because right now you have nothing – and also AGAIN you have yet to explain the follow-up studies that supported Dr. Hooker’s findings.

OH – and by the way – in science it’s usually proper to cite only the original study done, not the follow-up studies that support the original work… which explains why so many people continue to cite Dr. Hooker’ study. It’s not that her study was the ONLY one – but rather the first of many to show this results that homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals from a mental health standpoint. Other studies simply replicated that result – and are not commonly cited.

“Spitzer’s presentation was the rationale used in the APA decision.”

Along with a body of evidence which had been published in medical and psychological journals. Doctors read (or at least should) those medical journals for a reason, Mr. Mills. They were aware of the literature and studies that supported Dr. Hooker’s study and some 23 years after Dr. Hooker showed that homosexuality was not a mental disorder – there was enough evidence to convince the membership of the APA to change it’s position on the matter.

YOU ignore all of that evidence. (Which may explain why you have a very different viewpoint on the subject – than say – almost every psychiatrist in the world.)

“Loboinok referenced Dr. Collins from the Human Genome Project who stated homosexuality is not hardwired. Rather, what we do see in study after study is that environment is very important.”

“Hardwired” is a very unscientific term regarding our behaviors and genetic predispositions. The truth is we simply do not understand enough at this time to say how much of a genetic role is involved in homosexuality.

Dr. Collins – while certainly respectable – is not the final word in this issue. We have much still to learn.

All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection.

I don’t know if you really are Warren Throckmorton but thank you for the link. I, too, care about accurate use of research.

I think the Frisch review of Camerons’ study along with Kirk Cameron’s response was very interesting. I would love to see the discussion continue.

I accept your apology for insulting me and attacking my character, although you insert yet another insult in post 41. Also, you continue to infer and assume incorrectly.

While I don’t agree with Dr. Cameron on various issues and think Dr. Cameron could learn something from the benefits of diplomacy, he has been misrepresented numerous times by those who disagree with his various conclusions. Almost all of misrepresentations stem from Mark Pietrzyk and Andrew Sullivan or other homosexual activists.

I haven’t followed the issues surrounding Dr. Cameron nearly as closely as other issues. What caught my attention was when the APA officially dropped Dr. Cameron from membership when he wasn’t a member. I believe it was 13 months after he resigned.

When this caught my attention I started digging into the strange issue of the APA dropping Cameron when he wasn’t a member which, at that time, was when I found most of the misinformation on Dr. Cameron’s stemming from Pietrzyk and Sullivan, thus the term witch hunt.

Yes, I stated the Hoggs study supported Dr. Cameron’s study. I never said it was exactly a replication of [Dr. Camerson's] results as you stated. And I am quite familiar with their follow-up comments and since I agree with it in regards to using the study as an attack against rights I didn’t see the need to reference it.

Drug cocktails do indeed extend the life of HIV victims, both homosexual and heterosexual. Still, according to the CDC in 2003, 2004 and 2005, the rate of HIV transmission is returning to numbers similar to that in the 1980s along with other STDs. See here as well. Unfortunately, some states do not report HIV infection.

Some of the growth in HIV transmission among homosexuals is due to gift givers and bug chasers. If you’re not familiar with the terms… they are in reference to those who spread HIV to those who seek HIV infection, respectively. Here is an About article on the subject: Bug Chaser & Gift Giver Parties. Checkout the link to the film at the bottom of the article.

So while drug cocktails increase the life-span of those infected with HIV, the number of HIV cases are not dropping. There was a report of a new strain a couple of years ago that drug cocktails couldn’t help but I haven’t heard anything about it recently. What I see is that HIV is deadly, the number of HIV infections aren’t dropping and HIV appears to discriminate against, but is certainly not limited to, the homosexual community.

Regarding Wright and Cummings, read their book.

I never made the claim the APA used the Hooker study as the major or only source of information in their 1973 decision. This is an incorrect inference on your part. Although the Hooker study, flawed as it was, was used by Robert Spitzer in the decision, it was more than slightly influential in Spitzer’s decision.

Yes, some studies were written at the time of the decision. Were they used to make the decision? I’ve talked to and read original statements from some people who were there and part of the decision and they state otherwise. Is the APA lying to you? I certainly hope not for that is a big charge. Perhaps you should talk to some of those who were there.

Again, I am quite familiar with the history of the decision. I asked for specific information and used the word exactly in my request. You responded with a general link which wasn’t what I asked for. Poking fun at your reply may not have been the best response but it seemed appropriate given the more caustic remarks in your posts.

We agree the Hooker study was flawed, but it was more than flawed and it’s been cited over and over despite being discredited again and again. It was a homosexual scientist, Bieber, I think, who made the “reading tea leaves” comment in regards to her study.

Dr. Hooker studied rats not humans.

Dr. Hooker had no experience interpreting the Rorschach test.

Dr. Hooker didn’t like the results of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) nor the Make a Picture Test (MAPS) results so she tossed the results and used the ROR results, which while having standard responses, is flawed and unreliable.

Dr. Hooker created her own standards for the heterosexuals in the test.

Dr. Hooker (and Kinsey) lacked a random sample. She snowballed the study. That is, she deliberately requested her associates to recruit both homosexual and heterosexual participants who understood the experiment. And this to obtain a political goal to change how society looked at homosexuals. She wrote about this a couple of years before she passed away. I believe it was 1993 in American Psychologist where she said: “I knew the men for whom the ratings were made, and I was certain as a clinician that they were relatively free of psycholopathology.” Three words summarize her study: agenda, agenda, agenda.

That’s off the top of my head. There is indeed more.

Spitzer used the above Hooker study in his presentation to the APA. He also used:

1: Robins and Saghir, Male and Female Homosexuality which was as poor as the Hooker study and criticized by peers.

2: A claim based on Kinsey’s flawed data, which was more flawed than Hooker’s, that “Exclusive homosexuality” was a normal part of the human condition.

3: The idea that homosexuality didn’t meet the requirements of a disorder as “it doesn’t regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.”

Spitzer’s presentation was the rationale used in the APA decision.

Hooker’s study was the only detailed study used in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas brief! As previously mentioned this was written by homosexual activist Dr. Herek who misrepresented other studies. With homosexuals making up ~2% of the population, Dr. Herek seems to find and quote plenty of homosexual scientists and activists to support his homosexual activist worldview.

When insults aren’t flying off your keyboard you seem quite rational. Start with Wright and Cummings.

Besides everything discussed so far and I’m bringing this up because I believe it is related… despite the claims by homosexuals that they are born that way, there is no scientific evidence to support their claim. Loboinok referenced Dr. Collins from the Human Genome Project who stated homosexuality is not hardwired. Rather, what we do see in study after study is that environment is very important.

It is truly sad that some people infer same-sex attraction from certain traits or gifts. These same traits or gifts are simply what they are, traits and gifts and imply nothing else. What some people try to imply is the predisposition causes same-sex attraction. It doesn’t. There is something else going on here and ex-gays offer us some evidence as to what that might be.