Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Paul Cameron wants gays to go through 'public shaming' . . . amongst other things

Discredited anti-gay researcher and noted homophobe Paul Cameron has gone on record about the classification of his group, the Family Research Institute, as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It was during a very poor interview with the Colorado Springs Gazette. I say the interview was poor because the writer didn't give any detail about Cameron's dubious history of censures and rebukes by folks from legitimate medical organizations to conservative talking heads.

Of course in the writer's defense, he or she really didn't need to. Cameron came across in the interview as batshit crazy in spite of the fact that, according to the writer, he "dressed smart and had impeccable manners" and also discussed his views in a "calm, professional manner."

But how Cameron looks or professes his views is irrelevant. You really have to read some of what Cameron said:

God’s 11th Commandment is “Thou shalt not corrupt boys,” Cameron told me. He celebrated the Ugandan anti-gay bill, in which the penalty for gay activity could be death. “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with,” he said.

Cameron believes homosexuality should be criminalized in America. He proposes heavily taxing single American adults and homosexuals because of their failure to procreate. He would also like to see gays undergo a “public shaming,” though he offered no specifics.

The article also revealed some very interesting things about Cameron's group. It's run out of his home (why am I not surprised), run by private donations, has only four staffers, and has a budget of $85,000.

Now that last one really threw me. Who in the hell would donate money to this loon?

It's gets better. Cameron said the classification of his organization as a hate group by SPLC was a "left-wing" deal.

I would have loved for the writer to have questioned him about the lie he told in 1982 about a child being castrated in a public restroom by a gay man. Or that comment he made to Rolling Stone magazine about homosexuality providing one with "most satisfying orgasm one could get."

Oh well. Where the writer failed to do his or her job, Cameron definitely took up the slack:

The gay lifestyle, which he says is chosen, will lead to the destruction of the West. “Liberal minds are attracted to societal destructive things like moth to a light,” he told me. “No society can long endure that does such a thing.”

“If God has changed his mind (about homosexuality being an abomination, as written in the Bible), he must want the West to die.”

It's almost hard to believe that Cameron used to be the go-to guy for all anti-gay material used by the religious right. And if it weren't for the attention he has been receiving of late, he probably would still be.

And that is probably the main reason why those named as anti-gay hate groups, and their defenders, want to deflect the controversy to one about same-sex marriage. They are afraid to be questioned about their past affiliation with Cameron.

To be honest, I really can't blame them. Cameron is just plain crazy.

Related posts:

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory

More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour

Illinois Family Institute uses Paul Cameron's work but claims its not a hate group

Conservapedia's unbelievable defense of the discredited Paul Cameron

Why we should care about Paul Cameron

Why does Miss California's church believe that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked
 

Bookmark and Share

2 comments:

Marlene said...

Here's the URL for the Gazette story: http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/2010/12/03/springs-nonprofit-leader-wants-homosexuality-criminalized/8392/

Anonymous said...

In fairness, this was a blog posting and not a news article. I read the blog soon after it appeared & I think at that time it included a reference that the interview was conducted in an anticipation of an upcoming story. That reference is no longer in the blog post - so I don't know if I misread it originally or if the blog was changed because there won't be a news story. The distinction is important because I think the blogger was tossing out some of the ridiculous statements as a teaser for the news article - which probably would have been more balanced. The author of that blog will, from time to time, use his blog to tease an upcoming newspaper article.