Myth Buster Monday: Is homosexuality genetic, immutable and unchangeable?

No scientist or researcher has ever proven that homosexuality is genetic, immutable or unchangeable.  In fact many of the so-called gay gene studies, such as the Bailey/Pillard “twin studies,” prove the exact opposite – homosexual behavior is not genetic.  Homosexual advocates and the media have pushed the “there is a gay gene” myth for over a decade and a large share of the public has bought into this misinformation.

Even the American Psychological Association (APA) now acknowledges that there is not a gay gene.  In their “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” they state the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

It is necessary for homosexual advocates to equate homosexual behavior to an immutable and unchangeable trait (like race or sex) in order to claim the “gay rights” movement is a Civil Rights issue.  But can those who deal with homosexual tendencies and behavior change?  Yes, thousands of former-homosexuals are testimony to the fact that change is possible.  Gay advocates and psychological associations are particularly eager and aggressive in their efforts to discredit reparative/reorientation therapy groups who work to aid individuals who wish to escape homosexual behavior and lifestyle.

The success of the gay movement seems to hinge upon their ability to convince the public that change is impossible.  That National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has an informative white paper explaining the success and challenges of reorientation therapy.  See it here.  Again, homosexual behavior is neither immutable nor unchangeable and thus not a Civil Rights issue.  Some famous African American Civil rights figures have made that point as well:

“The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” (Rev. Jesse Jackson, address at Harvard Law School)

The recent refusal of the Obama administration to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) included a perpetuation of the myth that homosexual behavior is immutable and changeable when the Justice Department’s claimed that “sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny” in the courts – a classification reserved for cases involving discrimination on the basis of  such things as race or sex.

This particular myth is pretty deeply entrenched and requires each one of us to become educated on the topic and not allow the misinformation and misconceptions to continue.  Spread the word.

For a list of studies related to this topic, go to UFI’s Guide to Family Issues:  Sexual Orientation (pg. 26-28)

Day Four: Planned Parenthood falls on hard times at the UN

Another in our on-going series of UFI at the UN:   Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has always had free run of the UN.  But on Wednesday, the organization and its history were vigorously challenged.   It appears that the largest abortion provider in the world is definitely under siege – even here at the UN!

The room for IPPF’s CSW presentation:  “Let’s Talk about Gender and Rights” was packed.  They had a stellar line-up of IPPF-types as well as a big-wig from the Population Council (a leading population control organization).  Each presenter was very professional and expounded upon their “marvelous work” and how they help women and girls.  One note-worth comment went like this:

“Human rights are important and they’re all equal– sexual rights are as important as food, as important as clean water, as important as healthcare and other rights.  You have a right to have sex with whomever you want, whenever you want, have a child whenever, with whomever, or not have a child ever.”

But it was during the Q&A time that things really got interesting.  A young girl – maybe 17 – rose and began:    “I know from my research that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was heavily involved in the eugenics movement of the 1920-30’s.  Can you respond to that?”

There was a “deer in the headlights” look on the faces of the panelists, and one of them finally responded:  “Many organizations have things that are in the past, but the important thing is to focus on the present – on what the organization is doing today.”  Someone from the back of the room immediately shouted out:  “Planned Parenthood clinics are concentrated in black neighborhoods; you’re targeting blacks!”  The panelists all looked at one another and muttered under their breath, but no one responded.  Someone in the room then offered support and shouted out:  “Well, that’s cause they need healthcare in those neighborhoods!”

Sensing that the discussion was spiraling out of control, the panel moderator quickly called on another person.  “What’s your response to the allegations that Planned Parenthood is involved in aiding and abetting sex traffickers and pimps – that they are participating in fraudulent activities to avoid laws and allowed sexual predators to continue to rape young women and girls.  Do you think it will have a major impact on your work?”

This time the panelists were ready and regurgitated the Planned Parenthood talking points:  “Those allegations are false.  We did talk to the FBI after those actors came.  Go to our website; you’ll see!   As for your question on funding, we have other sources of funding at the international level and are not necessarily impacted by what goes on in the U.S.”

The last question came from a young woman who looked to be about 25:  “In regard to IPPF’s new Comprehensive Sex Education program…  Well, I had comprehensive sex ed in high school and it seemed there was little information given on abstinence – what was given was made to sound like it was a joke.   What do you have on abstinence in your new program?”

Here’s how the moderator responded: “Well….. well…..uhhhhh…we do have a part in the program that discusses not engaging in sexual activity until you feel you are in a position of power….until you feel you are mature….    Uhhh….”

Let us translate that for you:  There is NO abstinence information in Planned Parenthood’s new Comprehensive Sex Education program – a program that IPPF is promoting to schools around the world.

Later in the day we were in a caucus meeting room where the schedule of the day hung on a large piece of paper taped to the wall.  Next to the listing of IPPF’s event was a scribbled note in black marker:  “IPPF targeted by Evangelicals and Catholics!”

Planned Parenthood doesn’t seem to get it.   It’s not just religious groups – lots of people have figured out what Planned Parenthood is really all about.  And it’s about time.

Day Three: Launch of a new UN Agency

United Families International in the News!

Amid great fanfare and song, a new branch of the United Nations was launched Thursday night — UN Women.

Christiane Amanpour, ABC news anchor, was the master of ceremonies, and the program included academy award winning actresses Geena Davis and Nicole Kidman, Princess Christina of Spain, Rakhi Sahi — a former commander of an all-female police unit in Liberia, Ted Turner — the head of the UN Foundation, and the United Nations International School Choir.

“We are putting women at the centre of our activities around the world,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Kim-moon. “Women are the breadwinners who can help their families and their countries out of poverty. They are the mothers who provide food, the leaders who encourage education and raise the next generation. Women are the police and peacemakers who can help forge peace and stability.”

Roll over men. Women are taking over!

Michell Bachelet, the new Executive Director of UN Women, was recently interviewed on TV by Wendy Wright, Pesident of Concerned Women for America.

“She wants to look into how much time American men are doing domestic work,” said Wright.

So, not only have men lost their role as breadwinners, they must do more housework.

To read the rest of the article, go here

 

Day 2: Mothers at the UN

Mothers at the UN

Dear Friend of the Family:

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) begins today in New York and United Families International has four representatives attending:  Jean Bentley, Anne Stewart, Margy Barker and Marcia Barlow.

To give you a flavor of what these women might encounter, we share a short experience from Linda Ash who is a member of UFI’s executive board.  Linda and her husband Cecil Ash spent 3 years in NY attending United Nations commissions and building relationships with country delegates.  Their work and experience continues to be a great boon to our UN efforts today. Here’s Linda’s report:

__________________________

When a major conference is held at the United Nations, men and women from all over the world come to New York City to support a particular cause or share their grievances.  Many of them plan what are called “side events,” and these side events are calendared and well publicized in the hope that conference participants will attend them.

In 2007 when I was attending the conference, Commission on the Status of Women, I walked into one such side event.

Five attractive, articulate, well-dressed women, all from Sweden, had traveled to New York City to ask that their roles as “mothers” and their desire to be  “stay-at-home mothers” be acknowledged as meaningful and respectable, even crucial to society.

Their particular grievance was that unless Swedish women are working outside of their homes, they are scorned as non-contributors to society, even as parasites living off of those who are willing to work for the betterment of the country and its economy.

One woman shared with us the statistics showcasing Sweden’s growth and its successful economy.   She added, however, that the statistics that are not so openly publicized are the ones relating to child suicide and the rampant depression among women who are told that they can and should “do it all.”  In other words, women are told that to be a successful member of society, they must be able to keep their households and families functioning smoothly and efficiently, all the while pursuing a career.   She said that government call centers have been provided for depressed children who are at home, but added that the statistics relating to the call centers do not show a reduction in the suicide rates.

As these five young women expressed their frustrations and their desires to be considered contributing members of society while staying home to raise their children, my heart ached for them and the children growing up in such a culture.

Those who attended the UN side event were as frustrated with the situation as the five women living it in their home country. The debate was spirited, and the conversation very supportive of their plight.

At one point, I spoke up saying, “We can have it all…and we can do it all.  After all, we are women.  However, there is a time and a season to all things.  There is a season for us to pursue an education and to develop our talents and skills.  There is a season to have children and to love and support and teach and guide them until they can travel through life on their own.  There is also a time and a season for a career and self-indulgence, but these seasons of our lives do not run concurrently.  Usually, these seasons require spacing and follow in sequential order.  Utilizing this concept is the only way we can have it all.  Focusing on the demands that are most important to us at the particular season of our lives brings joy and satisfaction to everyone involved.   It is when we try to do things out of season that our efforts are frustrated and we experience failure.”

These words are not my words; neither are they original. I cannot take credit for them.   They are found in Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3.  But, they brought the entire room to their feet in applause.  The truth always rings true to those who have ears to hear.

As I compare my experiences as a mother to the desires of my Swedish friends, I find myself very supportive of their perspective. In a recent article by Julie B. Beck, she referred to a mother’s role as a “Lioness at the gate of the home…. She guards that gate, and the things that matter to her are the things that matter to her family.”  I have thought about that analogy many times.  As I have reflected upon the years when my five active children were still at home, I can see that her comparison is extremely insightful.  My thoughts have turned to the countless times with each of my children when, if I had not been available or vigilant or willing to “snarl and claw,” my children could have been “carried away” by the influences that exist to destroy their productive lives.  Anyone having had teenage children will know exactly to what I am referring.  Teenagers growing up in our society need a lioness standing guard, not a pussy cat, or worse yet, a distracted pussy cat.  Children desperately needed mothers in the home to provide direction, encouragement and protection as they develop personal maturity and defenses against a very permissive and dangerous world.

_________________________

UFI sincerely thanks our CSW representatives for the sacrifice of time and money to attend the commission this year.  We know it is our continued vigilance at these commissions that offers the support and persuasion to help secure a safe future for families.  We also thank you for your continued financial support for these great causes!

Day 1: New York, UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

United Families International has four representatives attending the Commission this year.  They are joining approximately 4,000 women from around the world.  It is a very colorful place to be – not only in terms of seeing the wonderful clothing worn by women from around the globe – but in terms of “colorful” comments and expressions of ideology and worldview.  We plan to spend the next week giving you an insider’s perspective.  Here’s the first installment.

The U.S. Mission Briefing

We managed to get our name on the “list” to attend the U.S. Delegation’s briefing held in the newly remodeled U.S. Mission right smack across the street from the UN headquarters.  The U.S. delegation’s roster has a smattering of “experts” from all walks of life.  The delegation is headed by Melanne Verveer who served as Chief of Staff to the former First Lady Hillary Clinton and includes such notables as Dr. Mae Jemison (former NASA Astronaut) and Geena Davis (yes, the movie star).

The delegation each took a few minutes to discuss their feelings about the CSW theme:  “Access and participation of women and girls in education, training, science and technology.”  Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from their remarks:

Dr. Mae Jemison (the former astronaut):

“Men think more highly of themselves while women and girls think less highly of themselves.  The gap is huge and it’s a problem.  Men are coming up with things that they think are more brilliant than they actually are…”

Geena Davis (referencing the negative influence of media on females – she has started a foundation to address “Gender in Media” with its focus on girls age 11 and younger):

“The more girls watch TV, the less options they feel they have in life.  The more boys watch TV, the more sexist they become.  Only 7 percent of movies are ‘gender balanced.’”

Melanne Verveer conducted an ongoing dialogue on “why we should ratify CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women):

“I think part of the problem is that the acronym “CEDAW” means nothing to people.  We need to somehow pound it into people’s heads that it is the ‘Women’s Human Rights Treaty.’”

Sorry Melanne…  the problem with CEDAW is that it is a dangerous treaty that threatens U.S. sovereignty  and the U.S. and its women stand to gain nothing from its ratification.  That has been the case for over 30 years.

MORE REPORTS ON WHAT’S HAPPENING AT CSW TO FOLLOW.

Myth Buster Monday: Is there a link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer?

“In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk…  They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”  So states the National Cancer Institute Fact sheet on the topic.

What the NCI fails to mention is that Dr. Louise Brinton, chairperson of the working group, chose “100 of the world’s leading experts” who were either dependent on the NCI or other government agencies for grants, or were known pro-abortion advocates – some of them radical pro-abortion proponents.  Yet none of the researchers whose work had found a possible abortion breast cancer link were included in Brinton’s gathered group.

Conveniently, the NCI working group then proceeded to exclude 29 of the 38 studies conducted over the prior 40 years that showed an increase in abortion breast cancer risk, but included most of the studies that reached the opposite conclusion.

In 2009, Dr. Louise Brinton, however, turned the pro-abortion world on its head when she conducted research that found a type of breast cancer that tends to attacks women under 40 and the risk of getting that particular cancer rises by 40 percent if a woman has had an abortion.  To substantiate her 2009 study, Brinton even included two studies from the body of work that her NCI group had rejected back in 2003 – one of which Brinton, herself, authored back in 1983.   To read more on the NCI “expert committee” and Dr. Brinton’s strange reversal go here.

The bottom line: There is a large body of research that has been done that shows there is reason to believe that there is some type of link between abortion and breast cancer.  There is certainly enough evidence for the health and medical community to be upfront with women, make them aware, and then let them “choose.”  But the pro-abortion community has way too much to lose to let information about an abortion breast cancer link  become part of the abortion dialogue.  (Imagine a lawsuit against the pro-abortion industry similar to the one against the tobacco industry.)  Count on the pro-abortion community to continue to dissemble and suppress information (with the media complicit) while women die.

To see a list of  studies on the Abortion Breast Cancer link go to UFI’s Guide to Family Issues:  Abortion (page 53)

House Passes Amendment Banning Planned Parenthood Funding

Congressman Mike Pence succinctly laid out the case for his amendment:   “..[T]his is not about Planned Parenthood’s right to be in the abortion business… This debate is about who [funds] it… Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can’t be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in America … but why do I have to pay for it?”    The continuing resolution – that included the Pence amendment banning any funding of Planned Parenthood – was passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday.

This is the first step in stopping almost one-third of a billion dollars from going into Planned Parenthood coffers.  The continuing resolution still needs the approval of the Senate and then the signature of the President.  This resolution is also crucial to turning back the tide on irresponsible government spending.

Planned Parenthood advocates continue to claim that Planned Parenthood deserves the taxpayer funds because they do more than just abortions.  Yet thousands of non-profits around the world do crucial work to aid women, children, and the vulnerable – without a dime of aid from government.  Planned Parenthood can do the same.  It is also interesting that just this year, Planned Parenthood leadership has required that all affiliates must do abortions or drop the Planned Parenthood name.

Thursday night, the almost three-hour debate on the Pence amendment was full of statements revealing the shallowness of the pro-abortion position.  Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis) made the stunning statement that abortion is better option for babies resulting from an unplanned pregnancies than a life of “eating Ramen noodles” or “mayonnaise sandwiches.”  Others tried to make the case that there would be no healthcare for some women or help for victims of sexual assault if Planned Parenthood was defunded.  I don’t think Planned Parenthood is necessary strapped for cash since they regularly bring in a profit of over $89 million a year.  I think they’ve got a dime or two to spare.

Thank you to all who contacted their representatives to encourage their support of these measures.  Please take a minute to thank them as well!  Then get ready to let your voice be heard as this measure moves to the Senate.

Watch Rep. Mike Pence as he tells it like it is:

Your Values Are Being Threatened

UFI’s core principles or “Five Respects:”

*    Respect for Family and Marriage
*    Respect for Life
*    Respect for Parental Rights
*    Respect for Religion
*    Respect for Sovereignty

Dear Friend of the Family:

Over the past several months we have discussed many issues related to the United Families International “Five Respects.” The fundamental principles inherent with these Five Respects have contributed to a global society that saw the family as the fundamental unit.  Individuals, communities, and nations that hold these respects in high regard benefit greatly as a result.  This fact is affirmed and reaffirmed time and time again by social science.

As a supporter of UFI, it should not be a shock for you to hear that strong societal forces are arrayed against your beliefs.  Many communities, states or provinces, and national governments have instituted education programming specifically designed to teach your children values different from those you hold.  These public educational institutions promote politically correct dogma that is, at best, value neutral, and at worst, destructive of said values.

Those who disagree with this value-neutral approach are marginalized to the point of restricting their parental rights to guide their own child’s education.

Often we see reports in the media of occurrences that shake our confidence as we seek to maintain a society where the Five Respects are valued.  We ask the question:  have we accomplished anything?  Are we any closer to ending the debate over the Five Respects or, are the anti-family forces destined to prevail?  In answer to these questions I state unequivocally to you that we are doing well, even though the conflict still rages.

We at UFI regularly call on the citizens of the various nations to remind their elected political leaders of the need to support the core principles contained in the Five Respects.  We called on each of you to request policy changes returning our nations to a status where the Respects are valued.  Additionally, we requested that governments refrain from funding domestic, international, or UN programs that undermine the family or other respects.  I am pleased to report that your response has been felt in the United States Congress and soon we hope to see more governments respond similarly.

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives has introduced legislation that seeks to deny funding for programs that use taxpayer money to fund elective abortions. Other efforts to withhold U.S. participation for UN programs that deny parental rights, promote sexual promiscuity, the sexualization of children, and abortion on demand have also been proffered.  A movement to promote an amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantying parental rights has begun.  A debate has developed regarding the undermining of national sovereignty through imposition of international laws and treaties. This is just a beginning.

There remains great opposition to these efforts.  For instance, the current U.S. administration remains the most vehemently anti-family administration in history.  But it appears that the representatives of the people are beginning to respond to your calls. Keep making those calls and sending those emails!  We encourage citizens in all countries to be involved as much as possible in influencing law and policy which protects and strengthens the family!

We see good people around the world recognizing the need to get involved and are engaging in the political process.  United Families International representatives are at the UN right now working with multiple country delegations that are making great sacrifices on the world stage to uphold the values you hold dear.  It takes all of us.  Watch the UFI blog over the next few weeks for updates as the UN commission “season” unfolds.

We, at UFI, will continue to represent you as someone who values the Five Respects.  Teach your children the value of these important tenets.  Stand up and tell your elected leaders of your values.  Hold them accountable for their response. That’s what elections are for! Help us help you by providing the time, talents, and financial resources necessary to carry out this prolonged effort.  The Five Respects cannot survive if you claim neutrality or sit on the sidelines.

 

UFI Reader’s Poll Results: Is the increasing average-age at time of first marriage a good thing?

The question:

“The average age at the time of first-marriage has been steadily increasing. Is that a positive or negative trend for marriage as a whole?”

Here is your response:

20 percent                          Positive

80 percent                           Negative

This is a question where we at United Families have no clear cut response one way or the other.   We believe that couples who marry at an older age can, generally speaking, create more stable marriages.  But, there is concern that if marriage is delayed too long, a different set of problems can be created.  Below we have included a few studies relevant to this question.

Next week’s Family Poll Question:

“Religion and religious freedoms are under assault.  Which group do you believe is the most aggressive in their efforts to remove religion from the public square?”

Click HERE and scroll to bottom of the page to cast your vote!

Academia

“Mainstream” Media

Homosexual Activists

Popular Culture

Legal organizations/courts

Some Statistics Related to Age of Marriage

Individuals who marry at a young age are much more likely to be unfaithful, especially those who marry in their teenage years. D. C. Atkins, N. S. Jacobson, and D. H. Baucom, ”Understanding Infidelity: Correlates in a National Random Sample,” Journal of Family Psychology 15 (2001):  735-749. Cited in: Frequently Asked Questions About: Infidelity (Affairs). National Healthy Marriage Resource Center. Available: http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/aboutmarriage/?d={ACA1F850-A0D7-454A-A1F6-4CE4B5C89320}

Compared to their peers who finish college, men with lower levels of education face significantly greater odds of divorce (from 30 to 65 percent higher odds, depending on education level) while women with less education (especially those with “year 12 or less,”) face lower odds of divorce. Belinda Hewitt, Janeen Baxter, and Mark Western, “Marriage Breakdown in Australia:  The Social Correlates of Separation and Divorce,” Journal of Sociology 41 (2005):  163-183.

Among people with unusually poor average marital success are those who have little education, who have little or no religiosity, who live in the South and West, whose parents divorced before they were age 16 (females only), who lived with their spouses before marrying, and who married before age 20. Norvel D. Glen, “With this Ring:  A National Survey on Marriage in America,” 2005 National Fatherhood Initiative. Available: http://www.fatherhood.org/doclibrary/nms.pdf#search=’With%20this%20ring%3A%20A%20National%20Survey’

Wives with more traditional sex-role attitudes were less likely to divorce. Laura Sanchez and Constance T. Gager, “Hard Living, Perceived Entitlement to a Great Marriage, and Marital Dissolution,” X 62(2000): 708-722.

While female employment was generally associated with a higher risk of relationship dissolution–whether couples were married or cohabiting–women who worked in a family business or who work in their homes were no more likely to experience relationship dissolution than women who did not work. Specifically, female employment outside of a family setting weakened marriage. Karen Price Carver, and Jay D. Teachman, “Female Employment and First Union Dissolution in Puerto Rico,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (1993):  686-698.

College-age couples who hold traditional gender roles were much more likely to make enduring marriages than couples who subscribe to egalitarian precepts. “Traditional women were more likely than other women to marry their college sweetheart, and to stay married to him during the 15-year period of study. Fully 43 percent of traditionalist women married their college boyfriend, and not a single one of these marriages ended in divorce! In contrast, only 26 percent of egalitarian women married their boyfriend and half of these marriages ended in divorce. Similar but weaker trends were found for traditional, moderate, and egalitarian men.” Letitia Anne Peplan, CharlesT. Hill, and Zick Rubin, “Sex Role Attitudes in Dating and Marriage: A 15-Year Follow-Up of the Boston Couples Study,” Journal of Social Issues 49, 3 (1993): 31-52.

Protecting the Family and Your Wallet

How much is $100 billion?  It’s the amount that will be cut from the federal budget if a Continuing Resolution is passed through Congress.  It’s also enough that conservative lawmakers can say they kept one of their campaign promises.  Recognize that it’s just a start on trimming back gross overspending on the part of the federal government, but it’s a start that also bodes well for the pro-life/pro-family movement.

Some of the monies that will be lopped off the top are deep cuts in subsidies to entities like Planned Parenthood (through Title X family planning programs), cuts to National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – organizations that aren’t exactly at the forefront of supporting traditional values.   Planned Parenthood is looking to take even more of a financial haircut as Congressman Mike Pence works on an amendment that would assure that not one cent of this budget is paid out to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates.   It is estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $330 million of your tax dollars.

The cries of “Defund Planned Parenthood!” and “Fiscal Responsibility!” grow stronger and we urge you to contact your representatives and asked them to support:

1)       H.R. 217 the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

2)      The Continuing Resolution to cut $100 billion from the federal budget

3)      The total defunding of Planned Parenthood

Pre-born children, your wallet, and future generations will appreciate your effort.