« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/10/2009

FRC goes P.C. (but not in the way you'd hope)

by Jeremy Hooper

Paul-CameronThis notorious, widely inaccurate claim comes from discredited researcher Paul Cameron, an independent "researcher" who was kicked out of the APA in 1983 and who's been laughed out of all credible scientific circles for almost as long:

Smokers and drug addicts don't live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical life-span of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.
Point By Point: A Look At Paul Cameron’s Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do [BTB]

Got that, you chain homo-ers? Okay, well check this out. This new, widely inaccurate claim comes from the Family Research Picture 5-220Council, a mainstream "pro-family" group who is still treated as a credible opposing voice to pro-equality activism, and whose members are frequently booked onto credible network news programs:

Just which "personal characteristics" are "extraneous" to health care will undoubtedly be decided by the same government bureaucrats who will set the standards for everything else in our new health care system. Will smokers pay the same insurance premiums as people who protect their health by not smoking, in order to avoid "discriminating" against them?

By the same token, will homosexuals pay the same premiums as heterosexuals, even though experts from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) say that "no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread" maladies as homosexuals? Issues like this show that "equality" and "fairness" are not always the same thing, no matter what liberal activists may say.
Beginning of the ENDA [FRC]

Wow, FRC! We thought getting in bed with Mike "marriage equality will kill the crops" Heath was a bad move. But Paul Cameron (via NARTH)? Hell, the mere mention of this man's work has been known to land some groups on the SPLC's "hate" list. In the hierarchy of "pro-family" credibility-destruction, his work is like Kryptonite's Kryptonite!

Not that we're complaining, as we will quite unapologetically watch FRC's descent to Fringeland with nothing less than amusement. We just thought they had a few more rounds of charades left in them.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Why didn't he include the obvious in his comparison?

If cost control is all important, and he is singling out those who cost the most to insure, then why didn't he include older insured persons? Why didn't he include women who are of child bearing age? Why didn't he include overweight individuals? Or hypertensive individuals? Or those with elevated cholesterol levels? Or those whose family history includes heart-disease, Alzheimer's, cycle cell anemia or an entire litany of other hereditary diseases?

Even if his egregiously erroneous and fabricated postulation were true, the obvious logical extension of his pernicious logic would end up increasing insurance premiums for almost everyone, especially those who are most likely to support his fear/hate-mongering.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 10, 2009 8:26:47 PM

Until recently, FRC contained "studies" that cited Cameron's work. The distorted studies were extremely useful to Coral Ridge's Robert Knight when he was employed there.

So the fact that FRC is inferring Cameron's inaccurate claims isn't a surprise.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Aug 10, 2009 8:38:26 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails