Your hero is a fraud, JoJo. The FRI's scientific staff consists of Paul and Kirk Cameron.
After Dr. Cameron submitted affidavits to the U. S. District Court of Dallas in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer wrote in his opinion that Cameron had "made misrepresentations to this Court".[11] Buchmeyer's decision was later overturned by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc.[24] FRI has disputed Judge Buchmeyer's assessment of Dr. Cameron's affidavits.[25]
In response to Cameron's estimation of homosexual life expectancies, calculated from obituaries printed in gay-themed newspapers, critics argue that his sampling technique was flawed and his research produced only meaningless results.[26]
Cameron has also been criticised for placing responsibility for same-sex child sexual abuse on "homosexuals"; opponents state that someone who carries out such abuse need not have a homosexual orientation with respect to other adults. [27][28] Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. charges that Cameron misrepresented the literature he had reviewed and cited to support his claims, such as a Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study in which none of the participants actually identified as homosexuals, and none of those who were bisexual claimed to prefer men over women. Furthermore, while Cameron assumed all the same-sex molestations were perpetrated by homosexuals, he did not assume all the opposite-sex molestations were perpetrated by heterosexuals; he included a "bisexual correction" only for opposite-sex molestations that effectively increased the number of perpetrators described as "homosexual" without changing the number described as "heterosexual".[29]
Dr. Herek has published a methodological critique of the Cameron group's studies in which he identifies at least six errors in sampling technique and data analysis. According to Dr. Herek, "an empirical study manifesting even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group's surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire.".[30]
If you think it's wrong, take it up with the APA.
