Gay Marriage: Hazardous to your Health
April 10, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts. In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
Addendum: Contrary to the misinformation twice provided by some silly blogger sending traffic our way, I did link to the original article. See that star in the top left-hand corner? Try clicking it.
Now, one could say that providing a link to an article as well as quoting a passage from the article without any additional commentary makes me a horrible bigotted piece of garbage slimeball, as the silly link-blind person claims and which a handful on trolls of this site are currently screaming. But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute” whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this? And if you don’t like the articles I link, then treat the presence of my name at the top of posts as a warning: “Oops, my feelings are about to be hurt, had better not read.”
“While it all sounds vaguely persuasive, the studies are based on obituaries Cameron found in the gay press — hardly conclusive or systematic.”
Look it up, closet-case.
Note that Paul Cameron has been expelled from both the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association for violating ethical rules, and he’s been censured by the American Sociological Association for misrepresenting other researchers’ works. He was even crtiticized by a judge in the Colorado Amendment 2 trial for misrepresenting his own research. People as reputably conservative as William Bennett (former Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush) have said that Cameron’s research methodology is flawed and his conclusions without merit.
If you don’t like the message …….kill the messenger.
The message in this case rests entirely on the “research” of someone whose past research has been roundly debunked even by conservatives. How can we as conservatives claim to speak for the truth when we promote liars as our spokesmen?
This has nothing to do with shooting the messenger — as Alex points out, Cameron’s *methodology* is hopelessly flawed, so the message is simply not credible.
If you don’t like the message …….kill the messenger.
If only…
[...] over at the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club, Spanky takes discourse to a whole new low:Gay Marriage: Hazardous to your HealthAccording to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians [...]
Man, do I reel them in or what?
Funny how ideologues suddenly become experts in research methodology when an article at planetout.com tells them they can be.
Funny how ideologues suddenly become experts in research methodology when an article at planetout.com tells them they can be.
Jesus, stop lying, would you? The methodology is crap. Everyone knows that and you should too, if you have any commitment to good science. The only response you should be making is that you realize that now and you regret posting this piece of garbage.
Indignation doesn’t seem to suit you. Try fishing. At least you’ll be participating in a less feminine past-time.
Huh? And I think you meant high dugdeon not indignation.
Now, stop lying and behave.
Why do you assume I am an ideologue? I said that I was a conservative and, as such, I don’t like to see my side use junk science from discredited sources. Furthermore, William Bennett is most definitely *not* an employee of “planetout.com”. It is up to us to make a reasoned argument against same-sex marriage from reputable sources, otherwise, when liberals accuse us of throwing out scaremongering nonsense, they’ll actually be right - and when those undecided folks in the vast, mushy middle hear about it, they’ll dismiss us as kooks. That hurts our cause tremendously.
I’ll ask again - how can we as conservatives claim to speak for the truth when we promote liars as our spokesmen?
[...] Columbia for ideas after that province decided to pay patients up to $5,500 to be a live donor. Gay Marriage: Hazardous to your Health— ThePolitic.com Apr 10 19:28 * According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians [...]
Boo hoo, Aaron had his feelings hurt by those mean anonymous trolls. When you use your real name Aaron, then we can use the troll slur… until then, suck it up princess.
“When you use your real name blahblahblah…anon. troll, suck it up princess”
Gawd! what nonsensical gibberish, to quote balbulican: “the adults are talking” hint hint: Smarter than Ezra, and I assume that’s your REAL name, Smarter than Ezra?
If this research is flawed and the researcher less then reputable, please provide links. I would like to judge for myself.
And don’t say Google it.
Aaron has provided links to demonstrate his point, the least you could do is the same to counter it.
Without getting into too deeply, Aaron has provided a link to an ideological website whose coverage of the study in question provides no link to the study and no description of the methodology.
I could be mistaken here (and I’m sure I’ll be quickly corrected if I am) but I can’t find any indication from Aaron’s link that this “study” was published in any peer reviewed scientific journal.
An exhaustively footnoted list of the professional censures against Paul Cameron is available here:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/.....sheet.html
The William Bennett statement about Cameron’s flawed methodology was a letter to the editor of The New Republic, published April 4, 1998. He wrote: “Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual lifespan is 43 years.”
Here are a couple of discussions of the flaws in Cameron’s typical methodology:
http://freestudents.blogspot.c.....%20Cameron
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.c.....00,008.htm
The first one is a little lighter (and libertarian in perspective), while the second one is more formal and exhaustive.
I never called you a troll, Aaron. I called you a princess.
Any of you trying to *reach* Aaron are wasting your time.
He knows what he’s doing; he knows he’s circulating bad science and he just doesn’t care.
I see very little point in trying to “reach” Aaron. He has his opinion and you have yours. But if you look at the actual post, Aaron simply links to an article.
Here is some advice, articulate your opinion about the topic proposed by Aaron without mentioning Aaron. Unfortunately, your comments are less about the issue at hand - gay marriage and health - and more about Aaron.
If you’re right, and the author who Aaron linked to is wrong, then what is the harm in linking to the article?
If you’re actually here to counter arguments like the one proposed in the linked article, do you think you’re being more persuasive by calling Aaron a, “closet-case”, lier, “princes”, etc?
“But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute†whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this?”
I’m moved to post by this bit of nonsense. In other words, you have no investment in the stuff you link to? You link to random subjects, at random? You put them up on your blog and you have a comments section, but you don’t want anyone to say anything negative to you if your random links turn out to be, say, homophobic pseudo-science? Are you open to people posting supportive comments about the stuff you link to? If so, why?
I rather think that you posted to the silly Cameron piece because you agreed with it, and when it was exposed as garbage, you became embarrassed and then petulant.
You have to better than that you know.
“But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute†whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this?”
I’m moved to post by this bit of nonsense. In other words, you have no investment in the stuff you link to? You link to random subjects, at random? You put them up on your blog and you have a comments section, but you don’t want anyone to say anything negative to you if your random links turn out to be, say, homophobic pseudo-science? Are you open to people posting supportive comments about the stuff you link to? If so, why?
I rather think that you posted to the silly Cameron piece because you agreed with it, and when it was exposed as garbage, you became embarrassed and then petulant.
You have to do better than that you know.
Like I mentioned in the code of conduct post, it is hard to have a good conversation when your jumping off point is near a cliff.
Replies such as this “Indignation doesn’t seem to suit you. Try fishing. At least you’ll be participating in a less feminine past-time” don’t win Aaron any civility points either.
That may be a problem with a group blog. Greg may be sincere in his desired to ratchet up the quality of discusssion; Aaron may simply enjoy sparking “controversy” like a talk radio host with deliberately provocative statements. Either approach is valid, but they are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Just following through on Cameron’s claims about “presenting” his paper @ an EPA conference:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/11/288
It was a poster presentation, not a paper of address, and subject to a much different level of scrutiny than a paper would receive.
In other words, Cameron continues to act as a dishonest hack - which he is.
Cameron “misrepresent[ed] his own research”.
Sort of like the “Family” “Research” Council in the U.S., along with Let’s Focus on YOUR Family constantly misrepresents actual research that disproves their false claims. (cf. Time Magazine)
Or like when a FotF poll actually showed a majority were in favour of equal marriage, they simply withdrew the poll from publication. (cf. religioustolerance.org)
The reason why the “religious” “right” lost the debate in Canada (and will, eventually, in the U.S. also) is because they bore false witness against their gay and lesbian neighbours. It is called lying and it is a SIN - 1 of the Big 10, if I’m not mistaken.
People who actually know some gay people KNOW that their relationships are NOT comparable to beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation, polygamy, cannibalism and alcoholism - ALL of which was said (and continues to be said) of gay people. Some of it is even recorded in Hansard, to the everlasting shame of the cowardly liars who said them, because a lot of them were politicians, goaded on by their (self) righteous constituent bigots.
Those interested in Paul Cameron and his ideological views may want to read this report by Jim Burroway.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.c.....00,020.htm
It seems that Paul Cameron (in his own writings) draws favorable comparison between his own views and those of Rudolph Hoss, commandant at Auschwitz. He also seems to endorse Hoss’ conclusions about the appropriate “containment” of homosexuals.
Jim links to Cameron’s article, so you don’t have to rely on Jim’s conclusions.
Needless to say, this is disturbing.
In general, I think when we seek to support our own idealogical positions, it’s unwise to rely on the “research” of those who find commonality with one of the evilist men in recent history. It taints our credibility.