Only the gay die young? Part 7 – Paul and Kirk Cameron reply

As expected, Drs Cameron have replied to my critique of their study of gay life expectancy. They have made it neat and tidy by separately replying so click each name below to read their letters.

Paul Cameron

Kirk Cameron

Paul Cameron’s letter came with my critique included so I have left this in the document (it is getting long) — Cameron’s thoughts begin on page 7.

  • Boo

    Absolute best crank quote ever:

    Today you pretty-much live in my world — a world that I had a significant part in conceptualizing and bringing about.

    It’s a Cameron world. The rest of us just live here.

  • Michael Bussee

    My God, I hardly know where to begin. Is this man delusional, narcissitic, paranoid — or what? Consider the following:

    “Today you pretty-much live in MY world — a world that I had a significant part in conceptualizing and bringing about.” (Can you say “grandiose”? “Narcissitic?”

    “My first quest only involved a significant irritant and minor health risk. The second (I guess he means trying to stamp out gayness) relates to whether Western Civilization will endure. (Gays are THAT powerful? Can you say, “paranoid”?)

    “Under law, all smokers — even those who benefit from smoking — are treated the same since they belong to the smoker group. The same is true of murderers, thieves, or in this case, people who engage in homosexuality.” (Notice the lumping together of gayness with murderers and theives. Can you say “REALLY paranoid?)

    There are many other examples. Then this: “Those that engage in homosexuality seem almost driven to make themselves public, whether in ‘gay pride parades’ or sex research; they are far from shrinking violets, and I have seen no evidence that this characteristic changes as they age.”

    Is that so, Dr. Cameron? Well, I have noticed that anti-gay “researchers” like yourself, Nicolosi, Schoenewolf, Berger, etc. seem “almost driven” to make their prejudice, fear, and comtempt for human differences public and “I have seen no evidence that this characteristic changes as THEY age”, either.

  • NickC

    I left this comment the other day on Post 6 in this series. However, that string was getting pretty old and probably wasn’t being read any more. The article cited is so pertinent to this topic that I’ll repeat it here.

    May 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

    Going back to the general subject of the Camerons’ research, whether gays die young, it looks as if we homos are not the only people with deviant traits who are dropping like flies:

    NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – A study suggests that women who are left-handed have a higher risk of dying, particularly from cancer and cerebrovascular disease – damage to an artery in the brain or an artery that supplies blood to the brain.

    While it could be a chance finding and the evidence is far from conclusive, numerous reports have associated left-handedness with various disorders and, in general, a shorter life span, Dutch researchers note in their report in the journal Epidemiology.

    “Left-handers are reported to be underrepresented in the older age groups, although such findings are still much debated,” write Dr. Made K. Ramadhani and colleagues from University Medical Center Utrecht. It is estimated that about 1 in 10 people are lefties.

    I’m sure that if you tie a leftie’s hand behind his backs and force him to adapt to life as a righty, he’ll live longer.

  • Timothy Kincaid

    He thinks some gay person killed his child’s pets?

    ummmm, I don’t even know what to say about that

    any my favorite quote is: Is it fair to give those who live parasitic lives ‘Super Rights?’

  • Michael Bussee

    He seems to have some sort of bizarre savior complex: “I have conceptualized and created the world and I have to make sure that civilization endures.” Gays are satan. He’s Jesus.

  • ken

    I think the most informative statement in his diatribe is this one:

    Likewise, knowing someone engages in same-sex sex (or says they fancy such), tells you quite a bit about how they live and the activities they are likely to choose.

    I fail to see how anyone could make such a statement while trying to assert his scientific integrity.

  • Boo

    My first quest only involved a significant irritant and minor health risk.

    OMG, I missed that the first time. His quest? His QUEST?!! Um… whatever you say, Gandalf.

  • Alex

    I still can’t believe they’re defending the obituary study. Forgetting completely the methodology for the moment, the final results are patently ridiculous. Kirk Cameron says, “The proof is always in the ’empirical pudding,’ and not strictly on what one surmises about a particular methodology,” so if the results are empirically impossible, then the study must be flawed, by Cameron’s own criterion.

    I’ve never seen the Cameron’s defend the most ridiculous implication of their data:

    If gay people are ‘X’ amount more likely to die of a particular cause, and gay people are a fraction ‘p’ of the population, then we can calculate that the fraction of total deaths due to this cause who are gay, ‘G’, can be expressed as (derivation in subsequent post):

    G = 1 / [ 1 + (1 – p) / (p X) ].

    From the obituary study, we are told that gay men are 116 times more likely to be victims of homicide than straight men (that’s X); and the Camerons further claim that 1.6% of males are gay (that’s p). Plugging in the numbers, we find that G = 0.65. That is, if the obituary study were valid, then we would necessarily see that about two out of every three deaths from homicide involve gay victims. This result is empirically ridiculous (do you think that if two out of every three murder victims were gay that we wouldn’t hear about this from the MSM?). As Kirk says, the [dis]proof is in the empirical pudding. Regardless of methodology, if the results don’t match reality, then the study must be flawed in some way.

    The results for lesbians are even more ridiculous. The obituary study claims that they are 487 times more likely to die of “murder, suicide, or accident.” Using the Camerons’ 1.4% homosexuality rate among women, that would give us a G of 0.87. That is, nearly nine out of every ten female deaths from these violent causes are lesbians. Again, this result is empirically ridiculous.

    Have the Camerons ever defended their obituary study in light of these results?

  • Alex

    In my previous post, I claimed that the fraction of total deaths due to a particular cause who are gay, ‘G’, can be expressed as:

    [*] G = 1 / [ 1 + (1 – p) / (p X) ],

    where ‘X’ is the gay death rate divided by the straight death rate (the “Cameron ratio”) and ‘p’ is the fraction of the population that is gay.

    Proof:

    We’ve already defined G and p, but lets define these and a couple of other useful ratios in a more formal way:

    G = (gay deaths / total deaths) [fraction of total deaths that are gay]

    S = (straight deaths / total deaths) [fraction of total deaths that are straight]

    But these two fractions must add up to one (gay deaths + straight deaths = total deaths), so we know that S = (1 – G).

    Defining further:

    p = (gay men / total men) [fraction of men who are gay]

    q = (straight men / total men) [fraction of men who are straight]

    Again, these fractions add up to one, so q = (1 – p).

    Our final ratio of (temporary) interest is:

    M = (total deaths / total men) [overall male mortality rate from our cause of interest]

    Using the above definitions, the expression M times G divided by p reduces to (gay deaths / gay men), which is just the gay mortality rate due to our cause:

    M G / p.

    Likewise, the straight mortality rate, (straight deaths / straight men) will be

    M S / q = M (1 – G) / (1 – p).

    Our Cameron ratio X is defined as the gay mortality rate divided by the straight mortality rate. The total rate M cancels out and we have:

    X = [(1 – p) G] / [p (1 – G)].

    This is a relatively simple equation that’s linear in our one unknown, G. Solving for G gives us exactly the expression marked by [*] above.

    QED

  • Boo

    Alex, all you have is math. Cameron’s quest has led him to obtain the Sword of Light from the tomb of Graknor The Immortal to slay the great dragon CH’at’nell’ith and free the lands of Vaegran, winning the heart of the fair princess Snooky. You really think you can compete with that?

  • Michael Bussee

    More hateful nonsense by Paul Cameron:

    “The right of ordinary citizens to happiness is diminished by homosexuals’ expropriation of beaches, restrooms, and rest areas for their sexual trysts.”

    WHERE is this guy hanging out? I am a 54 year old homosexual, have been around the block a few times and and I can honestly say that I have NEVER witnessed gay sex going on in a restroom. I have read some naughty erotica about it, but the real deal? Never.

    Sure, I know there are some places in town known for late night gay “cruising” — but there are many more places where straight cruising (and often blatant displays of straight affection) take place in broad daylight.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    But Michael, you have to admit that “expropriation” is a really big word.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Jim Burroway

    My favorite five-dollar word is “perspicacity.”

    As they say where I’m from, “Whoooweeee!!! Ain’t he smart!”

  • gordo

    Thank you, Warren. You have done us a great service. The letters tell us everything we need to know. We could debate whether they’re crazy and if so, what is the nature of the illness, or whether they’re just blinded by irrational fear and hate. But otherwise, there’s nothing to say about those letters. They speak for themselves.

  • Lance Bergstrom

    I suggest the following diagnosis for Cameron and suggest an unorthodox way to rid ourselves of his useless and parasitic semi-existence.

    DSM Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following[1]:

    1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance

    2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

    3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique

    4. requires excessive admiration

    5. has a sense of entitlement

    6. is interpersonally exploitative

    7. lacks empathy

    8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

    shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

    Everyone who responds to this person is giving him narcissistic supply. I suggest to every scientist, politician, gay rights activist, etc. to simply send a file containing a sample of their laughter (or just a written HAHAHA) to Cameron every time he seeks to be read or listened to. It really would not be long until he simply disappeared. His overwhelming fear that his worth depends on what others think of him would scare him so bad that he would simply sulk away and pick on somebody else. Stop giving him so much power. He is a school yard bully. Treat him accordingly.

  • http://aol.com Choclo

    Well! Gay is social deviants. We have to see the logic and the reason why are not., there are not logic and reason for be gay, perhaps, we can explaining it like a genetic mutation where all rabbits were white, but in the group came one black. The problems with the issue are that it has become a political issue, and politicians to gain votes have forgotten the norms of society. It will a theme for many year to come, always will be disagreement in the society and social conflicts that sometimes will be out the hands, many don’t understand he psychological effect on many people special those babies will be adopted by gays an raise in that kind of environment, etc ..

  • Jayhuck

    This most recent study highlights not only Schumm’s incredible bias, but his bad methodology. Box Turtle Bulletin has done an exceptional job of critically analyzing this faulty study and exposing its many flaws – not the least of which is a very small sample size.

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/walter-r-schumm