About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

SF Chronicle uncritically reported discredited, anti-gay "research" on same-sex parenting

May 23, 2007 12:17 pm ET

SUMMARY: In a clarification addressing an article on a new campaign encouraging same-sex parents to adopt foster children, the San Francisco Chronicle acknowledged that Family Research Institute director Paul Cameron, whom it had suggested was an expert on gay issues in its article, had been expelled from the American Psychological Association and that the institute has been "named a hate group." But the clarification did not address Cameron's discredited claim, reported in the article, that gays "are more likely to molest children of their same sex"; nor did it note that Cameron's "research" has been widely discredited.

41 Comments

In a May 22 post on the Americablog weblog, John Aravosis noted that, in a May 21 article on the San Francisco Department of Human Services' new campaign to encourage same-sex couples to adopt foster children, the San Francisco Chronicle cited "the leader of a known hate group" -- Family Research Institute director Paul Cameron -- as an expert on issues pertaining to the gay community, "without identifying him as such." Later that day, the Chronicle attached the following clarification to the online version of its article:

CLARIFICATION: In an article about San Francisco's campaign to get more gays and lesbians to adopt foster children -- as well as an opposing evangelical campaign to get more Christian families to adopt -- the Chronicle quoted Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute. The article should have noted that Cameron, who believes gays make unfit parents and self-published dozens of articles he said were based on his research, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 when he refused to subject his work to peer review. The article also should have reported that his Family Research Institute was named a hate group in 2006 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Yet, the clarification did not address reporter Ilene Lelchuk's uncritical reporting of Cameron's discredited assertion that gays and lesbians "are more likely to molest children of their same sex." Nor did either the article or the clarification note that Cameron's "research" on gay parenting has been widely discredited.

From the May 21 Chronicle article:

The campaign, which will include a billboard in the Castro featuring two dads with their teen daughter, is perhaps the first of its kind and sure to be controversial. It comes just two weeks after the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family began its drive to recruit more Christians as adoptive parents, partly -- the group said -- to keep foster children out of homosexual hands.

Focus on the Family's objection to same-sex parents is grounded in interpretation of biblical scripture and research by Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado. Cameron says gays and lesbians are unfit parents, are more likely to molest children of their same sex, switch partners frequently, have shorter life expectancies and cause their children embarrassment and social difficulties.

"Any child that can be adopted into a married-mother-and-father family, that's the gold standard," Cameron said. "An orphanage would be the second choice, and then a single woman."

According to Dr. Gregory Herek -- psychological researcher and University of California-Davis professor -- "[m]ost of the Cameron group's academic publications in the past 15 years have been based on a survey study conducted in 1983 and 1984." Herek analyzed the "group's sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results" and found "at least six serious errors in their study. The presence of even one of these flaws would be sufficient to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of any study's results. In combination, they make the data virtually meaningless."

Among Cameron's studies that apparently relied on this flawed data was Cameron's 1986 "Child molestation and homosexuality" study, in which Cameron concluded that homosexuals were more likely to sexually abuse children than were heterosexuals. Herek identified several other errors, false assertions, and flawed analysis relating to Cameron's research on this topic:

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are "based upon small numbers of data points" (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% were perpetrated by a foster parent against a child of the same sex, that is, female-female or male-male (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Various bodies of research have also found that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. For instance, Dr. Kurt Freund, Dr. Robin Wilson, and Doug Rienzo published several studies which found, in Wilson's words, "that androphilic (i.e. a preference for male adults) men had" no "greater relative erotic interest in children than did their gynephilic (i.e. a preference for female adults) peers." Herek, Freund et al.'s 1989 study, titled "Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference," also concluded: "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." Additionally, a 1994 study by researchers from the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the Children's Hospital in Denver found that "the children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people." As RA Dershewitz further explained of the study in the July 19, 1994, edition of Journal Watch (subscription required), a news service of the New England Journal of Medicine:

Researchers reviewed the charts of 352 children who attended a sexual abuse clinic at a children's hospital. Eighty-three cases were excluded because sexual abuse was ruled out or because the offender was a minor (none were identified as gay or lesbian) or could not be identified. The offender was gay or lesbian in only two of the remaining 269 cases. A lesbian woman abused one of the 219 girls and one possibly homosexual male was accused of abusing one of the 50 boys. Most offenders were heterosexual partners of a close relative, primarily fathers.

The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Colorado Psychological Association also argued in an amicus brief for the United States Supreme Court that "there is no evidence of any positive correlation between homosexual orientation and child molestation."

Furthermore, as Media Matters for America noted, a July 2002 USA Today report cited numerous experts in psychotherapy, psychiatry, and child sex abuse who rejected the claim that statistics showing "male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than girls" represent evidence that gay men are more likely to abuse children than straight men. For example, the article quoted David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, as saying that pedophilia is "kind of a separate sexual orientation" from homosexuality, and that pedophiles "often ... have no attraction to adults whatsoever." The article also reported that the "largest study on priests' sexuality," which was conducted by psychotherapist Richard Sipe, found "no tie between sexual abuse and homosexuality."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tman418 (May 23, 2007 12:21 pm ET)
         

      A Chronicle from SAN FRANSISCO didn't challenge this? Now that's the big surprise.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (May 23, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
           

        Conglomeratism knows no boundaries...

        Why is it that anything "San Francisco", "California" or "West Coast" seems to automatically eliminate the possibility that there just might be some corporate dicking with the media?

        I've lived in small towns and large metro areas all over California, and I can attest that owner and editorial slant is overwhelmingly to the right.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by AmericanMutt (May 23, 2007 1:38 pm ET)
             

          tman seems to take hate-wing talking points whole, without any brain-cells involved...sad

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tman418 (May 23, 2007 2:09 pm ET)
               

            Americanmutt, re-read my other posts. I was just surprised that a newspaper from San Fransisco wouldn't challenge this horrible anti-gay research that was severely discredited. I always fight hate-wing talk from likes of Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Dobson, Savage, Falwell (G.F.Y.I.P), and most of all, Savage.

            G.F.Y.I.P. means Go Feck Yourself in Peace.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 24, 2007 2:13 am ET)
               

            No, Tman is very reasonable. He is no rightwing appologist

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tman418 (May 24, 2007 7:23 pm ET)
                 

              Thank you, Merci, Gracias, doché (Cantonese), alligato (Japanese) Salon.

              Where does your name come from anyways?

              Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 12:28 pm ET)
         

      Doh! Congress is starting to ask questions about the missing billions in Iraq. Congress is closing in on Gonzogate. Cheney's bogus Iraq adventure is spiraling toward implosion. What to do? Wake up the homophobes!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by duncan12347948 (May 23, 2007 1:15 pm ET)
           

        This is off topic.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (May 23, 2007 1:55 pm ET)
             

          Apprears to me directly to impute motive to this sad piece of hate-wing trash. That sorta make it the topic! (Credit americanmutt for the usage "hate-wing" - I promised to steal it early and often, but just for a change of scenery, thought it might occasionally appear with attribution.)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 23, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
               

            It speaks directly to the motive.  Divert and distract from the nation's real problems that affect real people on a broad scale and turn haircuts, clothing and gays into election issues.  Never mind that you can't afford medical insurance.  Never mind that your sons and daughters are getting blown up in Iraq.  Never mind that your job has been exported to India.  We've got gays in this country trying to raise kids!

            Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (May 23, 2007 12:28 pm ET)
         

      Focus on the Family is all about gay-bashing. Nothing else.

      You know, if people are going to say that gays are more likely to sexually abuse children, why don't they actually take samples of kids living with gays, or create their own physical experiements of such, and see what happens. That's the only way to come up with such a conclusion that gays are more likely to molest their children.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by autopsychic (May 24, 2007 3:08 am ET)
           

        Focus on the Family is all about gay-bashing. Nothing else. 

           http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000781.cfm  and  http://www.focusonthefamily.com/aboutus/A000000410.cfm

           Sorry, I just don't see the specified hatred you claim. They do seem to care about turning people away from immorality (as they see it) but you are in no way required to follow their recommendations. Some people could construe what liberals teach as the "rights of a woman" to kill an unborn child as child-bashing. Just because you don't agree with the message they promote doesn't mean they are wrong with publishing their message. There ARE some who DO prefer to hear a more moral choice to live by.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by aDifferent McCain (May 24, 2007 9:28 am ET)
             

          Auto, how about:

          1. Attacking Ford's LGBT employee programs, and demanding Ford stop advertising in LGBT publications. Link

          2. Attacking Sponge Bob Square Pants and the UCC Link

          3. Attacking another government because they wish to be more tolerant than the U.S. and he isn't even a citizen there Link 

          4. ex-gays and other lies (hey, what's your success rate? Don't know? Oh your too busy to track, well the AMA has tracked these people and beyond the huge number of suicides, they found few if any people change) Link 

          ok, I can go on and on....but I think that is good for starters 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by iflurry8094 (May 24, 2007 3:14 am ET)
           

        I'm partial to the phrase "focus on your own family" myself...

        But that's really not a bad idea: study actual children of same-sex couples, instead of sexual victims.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by autopsychic (May 24, 2007 3:49 am ET)
             

             That's a perfect example of the "me first and me only" mentallity that most liberals have. I'll bet you don't personally know any of your neighbors. So much for 'building a community' with that kind of thinking.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by aDifferent McCain (May 24, 2007 1:15 pm ET)
               

            Actually I know all my neighbors,

            Like a good liberal, I helped the older couple next door re-tile their roof.

            And Carol on the other side, I mow her lawn every other week.  Lori on the other side of Carol watches my dog when I'm not at home, we watch her dog. 

            Paul across the street cut down a tree for us, in exchange for the wood

            I don't really know Ron (so I guess you got me there), but he's an ex-postal employee, who buries jars of pennies in his yard late at night.

            Yes as a liberal its all about me. Who are your neighbors?

            Your argument is a little flawed, I see more conservative organizations and people as me, me, me. Go to the suburbs during an election, see all the republican signs on these big houses with fences all around and yards filled with trees blocking each property. My in-laws are republicans and they don't know a single person in their neighborhood, they only hang out with people in their church, how nice.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by iflurry8094 (May 24, 2007 6:02 pm ET)
               

            Oh, but I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about personal responsibility and not depending on others. NOW you're telling me it's the liberals who mind their own business?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (May 23, 2007 12:52 pm ET)
         

      A new trend on the horizon for MM- print what ever the hell they want knowing it's crap, and THEN post on-line, the next day, a luke warm sort of correction...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by yahavhis6653 (May 23, 2007 12:54 pm ET)
         

      I do not think bringing up the S.P.L.C. and their classifications on hate groups adds to anything. Their own ravings tend to put them into the hate group area.

      I think that noting rejection of peer review and expulsion was adequate. Without peer review any research is fairly worthless and that quite often letting bare bones facts stand alone on their own is more affective than also bringing in opinions from controversial organizations. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (May 23, 2007 2:03 pm ET)
           

        That classification merely solidifies what analysis of the cited errors in his "study", and observation of the use to which he put the poisoned results, delivers to the reader: unadulterated distortion/lying to make a point that is hateful as well as untrue. However, since curiosity and understanding are not overwhelmingly the characteristics of much of his intended audience, as a shortcut it passes muster.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by autopsychic (May 24, 2007 3:16 am ET)
             

          delivers to the reader: unadulterated distortion/lying to make a point that is hateful as well as untrue. 

            Yeah, but using another hate group as the "point" maker doesn't really add credibility to it. It seems to just give the opposing voice some verification of what they believe, not whether one group is right or wrong.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by aDifferent McCain (May 24, 2007 1:18 pm ET)
               

            Provide evidence that SPLC is a hate group? Please I'm waiting.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by RINO Hunter (May 23, 2007 12:57 pm ET)
         

      "According to [link to psychology.ucdavis.edu] color="#0052a3">Dr. Gregory Herek -- psychological researcher and University of California-Davis professor"

      So Cameron's research is discredited simply because one liberal professor disagreed with his methodology? Only in the world of liberalism does one person's opinion discredit factual research.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 12:59 pm ET)
           

        Only in the world of Right-Wing wackery would Cameron's work pass for factual research.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 1:09 pm ET)
           

        Sorry, Rhino...it's not just one person.

        [link to www.qrd.org]

        Of course, I guess they could all be lying to thwart Cameron's Godly work.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by AmericanMutt (May 23, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
             

          darn, and rino thought he ahd a point this time. For once, but as typical it whooshed right over his head

          Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (May 23, 2007 2:05 pm ET)
           

        Rino, Cameron's work was hardly "research" and not factual at all. Way more than one person (who actually does real research) came to this conclusion.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 23, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
           

        This 5,000-word  "Opinion" by Harek is pretty good if you bother to read it.

        One passage stuck out to me that pretty much sums up how much of an idiot Cameron is:

        "Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed."

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (May 23, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
           

        that Family Research Institute director Paul Cameron, whom it had suggested was an expert on gay issues in its article, had been expelled from the American Psychological Association and that the institute has been "named a hate group."

        Yep.  Just one wacky liberal... and the 150 thousand member, 115 year old American Psychological Association.  Geez, Rino, did you read as far as the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 12:57 pm ET)
         

      "As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations"

      Ah, there it is. In the troglodyte mind, there is no difference between "homosexual" and "pedophile". It makes a convenient generalization for their homophobic agenda, but as science, it's crap.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by BarryGoldwaterConservative (May 23, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
           

        Correct Nerzog...

        It is sickening how bigotted the right is towards homosexuals. Most consider them nothing more than circus freaks. Fortunately changes are being made and tolerance is becoming more popular. It is amazing the relation between the far right and Osama Bin Laden in that they both believe that anyone who is not like them is to be destroyed...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by yahavhis6653 (May 23, 2007 1:02 pm ET)
         

      "expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 when he refused to subject his work to peer review"

      This is something basic any media source could have checked out before printing his work. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 23, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
         

      "Any child can be adopted into a married man-woman family, that's the gold standard" Cameron said. " An orphanage would be the second choice and then a single woman".

      Who are these people? "A orphanage would be the SECOND choice and a single woman would be the third choice for children". What happens if life hits your family and your husband dies, you would prefer a orphanage as opposed to a single mother for raising children? Or does this only apply to foster children? Do these people belong on planet earth?

      What is really hard to grasp is that this man belongs to an organization and there are others who think like him. These are suppose to be people who are dedicated to the family but have no humanity or soul.

      Sad sad sad

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MsOtter (May 25, 2007 9:49 am ET)
           

        Right??  I thought that was one of the most crazy comment I've ever seen.   I love your picture of him advocating taking kids away from their widowed mother or father to put them in the "silver-medal" position (the orphanage). 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Craig (May 23, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
         

      Maybe it's social conservatives who shouldn't raise children.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
           

        Remember when Newti tried to blame the Susan Smith case on "liberalism", and it turned out that she had been molested by her stepfather, who was a Republican church deacon?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (May 23, 2007 8:21 pm ET)
             

          I read that in Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. At the time, I thought it was one of the greatest examples of conservative hypocricy I had ever seen.

          At the time...

          Report Abuse
      • Author by SteveAudio (May 24, 2007 2:39 am ET)
           

        Craig:

         

        Thanks for the mention.

         

        SteveAudio 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 23, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
         

      Why...?

      Why is it that whenever right wingers delve into any aspect of science they have so much trouble with the concept of "peer review"? Maybe it has something to do with the scientific method not validating their crackpot ideas.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 23, 2007 6:04 pm ET)
           

        Yet, they will cite public opinion polls to bolster their own version of "science".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (May 23, 2007 6:56 pm ET)
             

          While at the same time saying they don't bother to read polls.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.