Since criticizing Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron’s “Scandinavian Gay Lifespan” study, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has participated in an email exchange over his comments, first with Paul Cameron and then his son, Kirk. That study, you may remember, was presented in a poster session at the Eastern Psychological Association’s convention in Philadelphia last March. Cameron’s subsequent press releases quickly drew a sharp condemnation in an official statement from the EPA’s president, Dr. Phil Hineline.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton has remained on the case. He contacted Danish epidemiologist Dr. Morten Frisch, who responded with a strong rebuke of the Camerons’ methods and conclusion two weeks ago. This prompted Dr. Kirk Cameron, Paul’s son, to mount an unusual defense via a letter he e-mailed to Dr. Throckmorton. (This is, as far as I know, the first time we’ve heard from Kirk directly. His father typically handles such communications.) In that letter, Cameron the younger has the audacity to conclude:
[C]areful examination of our work and of the charges against us reveals that — while no one is perfect, including us — we have performed our work with scientific integrity and honesty.
Today Dr. Throckmorton responded to Cameron’s letter with a thorough analysis of the Camerons’ paper. In it, he highlights a long stream of unsubstantiated assumptions and glaring weakness, all of which builds toward an unproven conclusion (that registered-partnered gays in Scandinavia die some twenty years younger than their heterosexual counterparts), which Cameron used as the basis for a decidedly unscientific publicity campaign. You can read Dr. Throckmorton’s splendid analysis here.
Dr. Cameron had no sooner posted his analysis when he received a follow-up message from Dr. Frisch, who described Cameron’s work this way:
Although the Camerons’ report has no objective scientific value, the authors should be acknowledged for providing teachers with a humorous example of agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook that will make lessons in elementary study design and scientific inference much more amusing for future epidemiology students.
I don’t think I could have said it better myself.
Dr. Throckmorton has impressed me the last six months or so. I can’t pinpoint the moment but I went from perceiving him as somewhat distrustful, a researcher brought in to give biased statements weight, to someone I feel is honestly being as objective as possible and following the data over his personal opinions.
Don’t hold your breath, though, if you are waiting for Focus, ADF, AFA, CWfA, LaBarbara, or Chase Harper to stop citing these bogus and discredited “studies” by the Camerons.
Nope, I’m sure they’ll remain as “objective” as they are about “gay” issues such as “marriage” and the “quote” key will be “used” to “qualify” all of their “objective” and “interesting” “facts” about “gays” and “lesbians.” But progress is progress at least, you can’t win ’em all after all.
Kendall,
Doc Throc is, I believe, the classic example of someone who started with some pretty anti-gay assumptions but who was open enough to listen when gay people responded.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that he’s supportive of gay rights or that he has a gay-positive theology. However, he’s also not willing to be a tool of anti-gay propoganda and has the integrity to challenge those who are.
As best I can tell, Warren’s position has evolved to the point where it is this:
Perhaps orientation has some genetic componant – but it probably is non-biologically influenced as well. And that really doesn’t matter – same-sex interaction is immoral regardless of the origins of the impulses. Additionally, it may be true that the majority of those who seek change will not find that their orientation becomes heterosexual, yet nonetheless they should seek to live a life consistent with Christian morality. And in the process they may find changes – at least in practical living if not orientation – that are fulfilling and meaningful. But false claims about homosexuality are not Christian nor are they beneficial in an argument that should be focused on practical living rather than accusation and hyperbole.
I’m sure that’s only a wild characterization – and probably not entirely accurate. But though I disagree with Warren often, I do respect that his worldview is open to input and observation.
And really his position is both the smartest and safest of anti-gay positions. If a “gay gene” were discovered tomorrow, or if gays were proven to live longer, have better health, and have relationships that are stronger and last longer, or if it could be proven that not a single ex-gay has shifted one iota in their attractions, it would not threaten his argument. He doesn’t say “gay is bad” because of AIDS, or genes, or “lifesyle”, or “change is possible”, or any of the other demonization tactics. He says “gay is bad” because that is his religious belief. End of sentence.
Pretty smart, really.
Oh, I totally understand Dr. Throckmorton isn’t exactly pro-gay. I don’t have a problem with anyone having different values and beliefs than mine, no one can force people to rethink their ideological position. I just respect that he’s at least willing to look at data and facts and come to rational conclusions more often than ideological ones. Essentially I’m giving Dr. Throckmorton credit for applying the basic idea the late Senator Moynihan stated: “”Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”
Throckmorton recently wrote an article concerning how those who found they had homosexual feelings that were not in line with their convictions should seek to lead a life of value rather than seeking out a life of happiness. I believe he pointed this out as a system to pursue in therapy.
Yeah… you can’t fault a person for his closely held religious beliefs (even according to the APA). But it’s just dang difficult for our cause when the prevailing religious thought in a country derives from institutionalized homophobic bigotry, which is claimed to be [masquerades as] a love.
I am also impressed by Throckmorton’s refusal to go along with the anti-gay hate agenda without any criticism or investigation of their “research.” However, it is not clear that Dr. Throckmorton has made the leap to actually treating gays and lesbians as full human beings and American citizens. I don’t know if Timothy is paraphrasing what the doctor believes, or is quoting him above, but either way, if that is an accurate depiction of Dr. Throckmorton’s views, they are still anti-American.
I say this because there still does not seem to be any room to even acknowledge, for instance, that gay-positive theologies have the exact same validity as anti-gay hate theologies, and that no American must be forced to live by any other religion’s lifestyle commandments.
I am sure that there are many who would object to Dr. Throckmorton’s theology as heresy or invalid, as well as the theology preached at his university. When Dr. Throckmorton can extend the same courtesy and respect – including supporting the full inclusion of gays and lesbians into society under the exact same rights and responsibilities Dr. Throckmorton enjoys – that he demands from others, he will have completed the journey he is on.
I don’t know if Timothy is paraphrasing what the doctor believes, or is quoting him above,
big ol’ paraphrase. and probably off in more than a few points.
CPT,
I’m not really sure what Doc Throc’s political opinions are. I know he opposes gay marriage, but on other political issues he’s been kind of quiet for a while.
But I am also sure that Warren believes his theology to be correct. Don’t we all?
Dr. Throckmorton is to be commended; he may well have taken some heat from the Focus on the Family crowd for not being a team player. In fact, he is doing a great service for those in religious academia and for all of us on all sides of this debate. His intellectual honesty is refreshing and admirable.
Moderator Note: Comment deleted because it was a cut-and-paste cross-post from another thread.
PBCliberal said:
He may well have taken some heat from someone, but in this instance I doubt it was from Focus – they don’t seem to consider Cameron’s work accurate either these days. It would appear that he is smelling so bad now that even the worst are beginning to drop the charade that he ever made any sense to begin with. When whoever it is that backs him finally figures that out, I doubt we will here much more of him.
well, you were complaining that my other post was off-topic, so I put it here. ;p
The complaint you reference was not about something being off topic, but about the entire comment being a cut-and-paste from existing text on your website. Read the original post and, if you have something germane to offer, comment on it. Simply posting an existing talking point from somewhere else isn’t the same thing.
I dare you to say it’s my website again.
and since I’m speaking for Dr. Cameron, yes, I cut and pasted since you blatantly misreprent things, downright slander. Paraphrasing seems somewhat needless in these cases, though you will be happy to know that my comments on their lifespan studies were my own…
Disagreement and counter argument are not slander or misrepresentation – they are essential to open discussion and a search for the truth. Considering what you or your alter-ego (whichever it is) do for a living, I find even that accusation somewhat brazen.
Please don’t dare anyone, or threaten them as you did Dr. Throckmorton in an earlier comment – it’s puerile and unwelcome. And once again, this is a place for informed discussion, not PR damage control. Please get back to the subject if you wish to comment further.
PCBLiberal said:
I have taken some mild “heat” but not from Focus on the Family. They do not refer to his research and haven’t for some time, as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the kind words.
Phillips – You say you speak for Paul Cameron; why do you not use your real name?
Roberts, the thing is you aren’t arguing. And please don’t lie, unless you’d like to point out where I threatened Dr. Throckmorton.
Warren, what gives you the impression this is anything but my real name. No, I don’t speak for Paul Cameron, as in I’m not associated with them – just defending him and FRI’s work.
To be honest Phillips, trolling back through your comments just isn’t worth the effort – there isn’t an intelligent point in the lot of them. I would like to be more gracious for the sake of others but I’m just too tired of suffering idiots at this point.
If you want to wallow in Paul Cameron’s filth with him, please shower before coming around here in the future.