Myth Buster Monday: Parents who have conflict in their marriage should divorce for the sake of their children.

If your marriage is unhappy and you feel like a divorce would be better for your children, you might want to think again.  Studies have determined that divorces in high-conflict marriages have a neutral or beneficial effect on a child.  Children from low-conflict families who experience parental divorce, however, suffer significant adverse effects on their psychological and social well-being[1]

How many couples are in “high-conflict” marriages?

According to a 15-year study, less than one-third of divorces occur in high-conflict marriages (ie., abusive or violent).  Most divorces occur in low-conflict, but unhappy marriages.  Twenty-eight percent of parents who divorced during the study reported any sort of spousal physical abuse prior to divorce, 30 percent reported more than two serious quarrels in the last month, and 23 percent reported that they disagreed “often” or “very often” with their spouses. Thus it appears only a minority of divorces involve high-conflict marriages. [2]

Researchers agree that, except in cases of high and unremitting parental conflict, children who grow up in households with their married mother and father do better on a wide range of economic, social, educational, physical and emotional measures than the children raised in other kinds of family arrangements.

What about those unhappy marriages?

Two-thirds of unhappily married spouses who stayed married reported that their marriage improved within five years.  The most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds; among those who rated their marriages as “very unhappy,” almost eight out of ten who avoided divorce were happily married five years later.[3]

---

[1] Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Predivorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (February 2001): 197-212.

[2] Paul Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997): 220.

[3] Linda Waite, Don Browning, William Doherty, Maggie Gallagher, Ye Luo and Scott Stanley, “Does Divorce Make People Happy?  Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages,” New York:  Institute for American Values, (2002):  148-149.

Want to live longer and improve your health? Get married and stay married

The happily married not only live longer by engaging in a healthier lifestyle, but they also have more friends.  This new round of news articles regarding the “marriage advantage,” comes from major studies done in seven European countries.  Some of the key research findings include:

• Marriage and other forms of partnership can be placed along a sliding scale of commitment, with greater commitment conferring greater benefit.
• Marriage can reduce the chance of premature death by 15 per cent.
• Evidence suggests that the optimal age for marriage is after age 25 for men, but between the ages of 19 and 25 for women.
• In terms of physical health, men benefit most from marriage; in terms of mental health, women benefit most.
• The benefits of marriage increase with the longevity of marriage.

John Gallagher, a Cardiff University academic involved with the meta-analysis of approximately 140 studies addressed the question of relationship quality.  He was quick to point out that strained relationships can be bad for mental health, but he added:  “Although failure of a relationship can harm health, that is an argument for avoiding a bad relationship rather than not getting into a relationship at all…  On balance, it is probably worth making the effort.”

 

Results of Family Poll: “Should businesses have the right to refuse service?”

This poll received an unusually high number of people participating.  This topic was generated because of the news story out of Britain about a small hotel owner who was fined for refusing service to a same-sex couple. There is also news story about Walgreens and a pharmacist refusing to provide a drug related to an abortion.

“Do you believe that businesses should have the “right to refuse service to anyone?”

“Yes”                     91 percent

“No”                      7 percent

“Undecided”      2 percent

We received a kind letter from a Canadian gentleman letting us know that didn’t give enough clarification to the question.  He explained that we needed to qualify the question by stating “private-sector businesses” and “non-essential services” businesses.  Perhaps he is correct, but we struggled with the notion that there even are “government businesses” – what might those be – maybe utility companies?  But we do acknowledge that adding “non-essential services” businesses would have made for a better question.

UFI’s position on this question:  A business does have the right to refuse services to individuals as long as it is a non-essential service.  We’ll leave the definition of “non-essential” to you.

Childhood Factors that Influence Same-Sex Behavior

What role do parents and childhood family experiences have on the development of an individual’s same-sex behavior?  That’s a question that is often directed our way – in fact we received an inquiry on the topic today.  So we’re passing on some of the information that is available.

The authors of a major study out of Denmark, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded:  “Whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important.”   They added:   “[C]hildhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.”

1. Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships — particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.
2. Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage “were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father.”
3. Men and women with “unknown fathers” were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.
4. Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence “had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father’s death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage.”
5. “The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage…homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence.”
6. “Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages.”
7. “Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years.”
8. The mother’s age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men — the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, “only children” were more likely to be homosexual.
9. Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner — suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation. (List from NARTH:  National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality)

Reference:”Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes,” by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006

How do you want your child educated?

One of the most important rights of parents is the ability to choose where and how their children will be educated.  That parental right becomes even more crucial as we watch the problems in society and culture spiral downward and the quality of education has diminished.  The last decade has seen major strides in providing options for parents in K-12 education as the “school choice” movement has begun to blossom.   January is the month for numerous pro-life and pro-family commemorations and celebrations and this week has been deemed “National School Choice Week.”

We encourage you to consider the quality of your child’s education.  Are you content?  Is your child learning and flourishing?  Did you know that you have options?  For example, the State of Arizona just recently released a new website arizonaschoolchoice.com to aid their citizens.  You can go here to learn what options might be available to you in other areas of the country and to join the effort to promote school choice.

There is no right or wrong answer as to where your child should be educated; but it is definitely important that as a parent you have the right to make that decision.  There are some parents who don’t.  Watch the video below.

 

Myth Buster Monday: There is a Growing Epidemic of “Hate Crime” against Homosexuals

No violent crime should be condoned, including hate crimes, but the notion that homosexuals are subject to attacks and violence at greater numbers than the general population is simply not true.  In fact, the greatest rate of violence directed at homosexuals is within the homosexual community itself – between homosexual partners.

The FBI’s most current numbers (2009) indicate that all hate crimes are down (7,783 to 6,604). Hate crimes based on sexual orientation bias dropped from 1,297 to 1,223 (with over 80 percent of these incidents noted as being non-violent).  These are the lowest numbers that the FBI reports for any year listed on its website with the reports going back to 1995.  Yet the number of law enforcement agencies now reporting hate crimes statistics to the FBI is the highest on record (13,690 to 14,422)

There were 1.3 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in 2009; of those violent crimes 2,600 were placed in a “hate crime” category.  That’s about 0.20 percent of all violent crimes were considered “hate crimes.”   But what is the percentage of violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) that were classified as “anti-homosexual?”  - an infinitesimal four-one-thousandth of a percent (0.004 percent).

A U.S. Justice Department study shows an epidemic of violence between homosexuals, otherwise known as Intimate Partner Violence.  The annual average is 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners (U.S. Department of Justice, “Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99,”)   By contrast; the 1999 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,558 victims. (U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Federal Bureau of Investigation)

Share the facts.

A Day that should live in Infamy

Today, January 22, marks the 38^th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  Since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that every woman had a constitutional right to have an abortion, some 55 million pre-born children have been ripped from their mother’s womb and discarded.  But there is good news:  many Americans are beginning to grasp the reality of abortion – not only does it end a child’s life, but it harms the mother as well.

According to Gallup, more people consider themselves to be pro-life than pro-choice. Not to mention that the pro-life community has made major strides in passing legislation to protect pre-born children and their mothers.  More legislators and governors are avidly pro-life – much to the dismay of the pro-abortion lobby.   The evolution of medical technology continues to show that a pre-born baby is just that – a baby!   The “it’s just a blob of tissue” group appears more and more cold and calculating – definitely not willing to acknowledge reality.

Take time this weekend to attend one of the various events occurring to honor this Sanctity of Life weekend.  There are Marches for Life all around the country with the largest one occurring in Washington DC on Monday.  Check your local Right to Life organization to find when their commemorations are taking place.  At the very least, take some time to remember and teach your children that every life is to be cherished and protected – and most especially our smallest and most vulnerable ones.

Is political rhetoric responsible for the Tucson Shooting? Results of Poll

“Should political rhetoric be blamed for horrific actions of lone-acting individuals?” was the question and here is how our readers responded:

No                    91 percent

Yes                   6 percent

Undecided       3 percent

Regarding this question, UFI received several emails such as this:

“When you tell us to vote, please TELL US HOW you want us TO VOTE (in the light of United Families International)!” Or another, “We want to know what you at UFI think…”

There isn’t an easy answer, but here we go:

Although a broad public discourse on civility in politics and political rhetoric is much needed, we at United Families hesitate to tie that need to the events in Tucson, Arizona, where a severely mentally-disturbed young man killed six individuals and wounded 13 others.  There are two distinct issues on the table that need attention and they should not be connected.

Recognizing that severe mental illness can play a role; individuals are responsible for their own actions.   Many argue that the actions of Jared Loughner represent a failure of the mental health system.  That is a judgment we at UFI are unqualified to make.

Our UFI alert, Respect for life and the Tragedy in Tucson, sent out a two days after the shootings, emphasizes that much of contemporary culture and the coarsening of society – not to mention bad public policy – has lead to a loss of basic respect for life.   That as much as anything, in our opinion, contributes to the random and not-so-random violence that we seem to find all around us.

We at UFI are not in the camp that would indict political rhetoric for what occurred in Tucson.

“Increased access to contraception decreases abortion.” Since when?

“Forty-one percent of all pregnancies end in abortion in New York City” has been a reoccurring headline over the last few weeks.  You add that to the Guttmacher Institute’s recent release of abortion statistics telling us that the nationwide abortion rate has gone up one percent – and you have fertile ground for the pro-abortion folks to push discussions on the need for more contraception.  Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, was quick to point out that this should serve as an “urgent message” to policymakers to ramp up access to contraception.

But is Sharon Camp correct?  Increased access and use of contraception = less unintended pregnancies = less abortion.  Sounds logical, but is that what really happens?

Turns out it’s the opposite – the more widespread the use of contraception, the higher the abortion rate.  International Planned Parenthood has known this since the 1970s:

“Abortion and contraception are inextricably intertwined in their use. As the idea of family planning spreads through a community there appears to be a rise in the incidence of induced abortion at the point where the community begins to initiate the use of contraceptives.”  -Malcom Potts, former medical director for International Planned Parenthood Federation

Surprisingly, even the Supreme Court has argued that abortion and contraception go hand in hand stating that Americans for “two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

It’s going to take a little more than a call for “increased contraception” to bring the abortion rate down.

• Abortion will not decrease as long as there continues to be a cavalier attitude towards sex and marriage is relegate to a thing of the past.
• Abortion will not decrease until unborn children are more highly valued than convenience.
• Abortion will not decrease until the unborn are accepted and valued as full members of the human family.

Perhaps Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has it right:

“America won’t reject abortion until America sees abortion.”

“Hello Baby!” Get this app for your I-pad

If you’re pregnant or know someone who is, this is the app for you.  Released last spring by Pampers, this free app allows you to “enjoy the full experience of your baby’s development even before he or she is born.”  You can monitor your baby’s growth from week 4 to week 40, “even tickle your baby’s feet and listen to your baby’s heartbeat.”

So download the app and share it with everyone.  Not only will you learn and grow closer to your baby, but it gives you a chance to share the reality and the humanity of pre-born children with others.

By the way, I didn’t hear a single reference to “fetus” in this promotional video.  When the assumption is that the pre-born child is wanted (and celebrated) it’s always “baby.”  But, when the assumption is that you might be “choosing” to get rid of your pre-born child – it’s “fetus.”  Funny how that works…