UFI

Archive for the ‘AIDS’ Category

Myth Buster Monday: Does same-sex behavior meet the criteria of a civil rights issue?

In AIDS, Homosexuality, Myth Buster, Sanctity of Life on November 14, 2011 at 9:45 pm

Is same-sex behavior innate, immutable, and unchangeable?  If it cannot meet this standard, then it does not qualify for a civil rights classification.   To answer the question we refer you to Greg Quinlan, a former homosexual, who is now the president of PFOX – Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays.

This is an interview that is well worth your time.  In spite of an interviewer who has done his homework and is intent on cornering Greg Quinlan, Greg deftly handles each and every question while explaining the many myths surrounding homosexual behavior and lifestyle.

Can homosexuals change?  Listen to Greg Quinlan and you decide.

Part II:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUcLia8Ws8Y&feature=related

Reader Poll: “Does it concern you that the U.S. government is considering eliminating the now existing ban against blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex?”

In AIDS, Homosexuality, Polls on August 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm

This is the question we asked our readers:

“Does it concern you that the U.S. government is considering eliminating the now existing ban against blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex?”

Here is how they responded:

92 Percent           Concerns me, a ban is a prudent policy

8 Percent             No concerns here

0 Percent             Can’t decide

 In the U.S. the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate for men who have sex with other men (MSM)  is 60 times higher than the general population.  As the vast majority of the UFI readers have indicated, the policy banning any man who has had had homosexual sex from donating blood is indeed prudent.  Particularly when you consider that the incidents of “false negatives” in any given screening test is always a concern.  A screening test for HIV/AIDS that gives a “false negative” has life-threatening repercussions for those who might receive a transfusion from that blood.

It is not “homophobia” or a desire to discriminate against MSM that drives the ban on blood donation, but a desire to protect the donor blood supply of a nation.  If there’s a shortage of blood, as supporters of the removal of the ban claim, then let’s do a major public service campaign to increase donations from the rest of the population.  “Safety before political correctness” should prevail.

For clarification and answers to the FDA’s policy on blood donation, visit this link:

Blood Donations from Men who have sex with other Men:  Questions and Answers

You can also see a list of nations of the world and their policies on blood donation, click here.

“Students defend the family at the UN”

In Abstinence, AIDS, Homosexuality, Human Rights, UFI, UN on August 3, 2011 at 5:44 pm

UFI in the News

Four students from BYU and a student from Arizona State University attended a conference with the UN in New York City to represent United Families International on July 25 and 26. Many young people attended the conference to discuss issues facing the upcoming generation. Among the issues discussed was the sexual rights debate. Abortion and homosexual marriage were at the forefront of the debates, along with the idea that young people, including adolescents, should have no sexual restraints.  Read more

Straight Talk for Those Who Buy into Hollywood’s Values

In Abortion, Abstinence, AIDS, Child Development, Sex Education on July 28, 2011 at 10:09 pm

By Rachel Allison

Hollywood and the media send “in your face” messages of sexual lies that far too often men and women swallow, hook, line and sinker.  “Sex on the first date?  That’s okay, it was love at first sight”.  “You waited to have sex until the third or fourth date?  You’re a pillar of self-control.”  “You choose to wait until you are married to have sexual intimacy?  You are a prude. “

Let’s talk facts.

1.  According to medical studies intimate behavior floods the brain with oxytocin, a chemical that fuels attachment.  When oxytocin levels are high, a person is more likely to overlook the partner’s faults, and take risks not normally taken.  When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green.  It plays a major role in what’s called “the biochemistry of attachment.”

According to Dr. Miriam Grossman, MD, girls, in particular, can develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with her.  She might think of him all day, but he can’t remember her name.

2.  Science has confirmed the existence of “beer goggles”—when a person seems more attractive to you after you’ve had a few drinks.  In a British study, eighty college students rated photos of unfamiliar faces of men and women their age; alcohol consumption significantly raised the scores given to photos of the opposite sex. Drinking affects the nucleus accumbens, the area of the brain used to determine facial attractiveness.  It’s probably one of several reasons that casual, high-risk sex is often preceded by alcohol consumption.

3.  A recent study of the hook-up culture at Princeton University reveals:  Before the hook-up:  Girls expect emotional involvement almost twice as often as guys; 34 percent hope “a relationship might evolve.”  Guys, more than girls, are in part motivated by hopes of improving their social reputation, or of bragging about their exploits to friends the next day.  After the hook-up:  91 percent of girls admit to having feelings of regret.  Guilt and “feeling used” are commonly cited, and overall, 80 percent of girls wish the hook-up hadn’t happened.

Other studies have shown:  84 percent of women said that after having sex a few times, even with someone they didn’t want to be emotionally involved with, they begin to feel vulnerable and would at least like to know if the other person cares about them.

As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.  Forty nine percent of students whose hook-up included intercourse never see one another again, and less than 10 percent of “friends with benefits” develop into romance.

4.  A younger cervix is more vulnerable to infection.  The younger cervix has a vulnerable area one cell thick, called the transformation zone.  It’s easy for HPV (the human papillomavirus, which can cause genital warts, and even cervical cancer) to settle in there.  That’s why most teen girls are infected from one of their first sexual partners.  By adulthood the transformation zone is replaced with a thicker, tougher surface.  Even though these infections are common, and usually disappear with time, learning you have one can be devastating.  Natural reactions are shock, anger, and confusion.  “Who did I get this from, and when?  Was he unfaithful?  Who should I tell? And hardest of all:  Who will want me now?  These concerns can affect concentration, sleep, mood, and can deal a serious blow to one’s self-esteem.

The HPV vaccine is a major achievement, but the protection it provides is limited. You are still vulnerable to other infections like herpes, Chlamydia, HIV, and non-covered strains of HPV….not to mention the emotional trauma inflicted.

5.  Most guys who have a sexually transmitted infection don’t know it. Routine testing for men does not provide information about HPV or herpes.  It’s easiest to transmit herpes or HPV when warts or sores are present, but it can also happen at other times, when everything looks OK.  Condoms only reduce the risk by 60-70 percent.  So you may still pay a price, even if both partners are tested and a condom is used every time.

6.  And about those other sexual activities…having more than five oral sex partners has been associated with throat cancer.  Turns out that HPV can cause malignant tumors in the throat, just like it does in the cervix.

In a study of sexually active college men, HPV was found both where you’d expect—the genital area—and where you wouldn’t:  under fingernails.  Researchers now speculate whether the virus can be shared during activities considered “safe,” like mutual masturbation.

According to the Center for Disease Control, approximately 30 percent of all women will have had anal intercourse by the age of 24.  Even with condoms, this behavior places them at increased risk of infection with HIV and other STDs.  For example, the risk for HIV transmission during anal intercourse is at least 20 times higher than with vaginal intercourse.  The government website, www.fda.gov, provides no-nonsense advice about avoiding HIV:  “Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice.”

7.  Seventy-five percent of college freshmen say that raising a family is an “essential or very important goal.”  But 55 percent of younger high-achieving women are childless at 35.  And 89 percent of them think they’ll be able to get pregnant into their forties.

It’s easiest for a woman to conceive and deliver a healthy child in her twenties.  Fertility declines slightly at 30, and more dramatically at 35.  Some may imagine that the waiting rooms of fertility clinics are packed with obese women smoking cigarettes.  Wrong!  They are filled with health-conscious women who work out and count calories.  They are there because they’re forty.

 Hollywood’s lie?  “Exploring and experimenting with sex is fulfilling, exciting, and satisfying.” 

Don’t fall for it.  It’s easy to forget, but the characters on Grey’s Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real.  In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes.  They’d likely be on Prozac or Zoloft. Today a woman cannot have multiple partners without paying a price.

Most of this article comes from Sense and Sexuality by Miriam Grossman, M.D.

For your bookshelf:  “Unprotected” by Miriam Grossman, M.D.,  “The Female Brain” by Louann Brizendine, M.D. and “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” by Steven E. Rhoads, Ph.D.

The youth of the world invited, but not allowed to speak

In Abstinence, AIDS, UN on July 26, 2011 at 11:56 am

*Another in UFI’s series of blog posts from the young adults attending the UN High Level Meeting on Youth

By Ashley Tucker

Growing up I always imagined and thought of the United Nations as a grand, elite meeting ground for world intellectuals who work to change the world (hopefully in a positive way).

I could not have been more wrong.

While attending the UN High Level Meeting on Youth, I sat for hours listening to delegate after delegate in turn say the same thing- “we need youth to be involved in government. Youth participation is critical for our future. The involvement of the youth is not just for tomorrow but today!” – And this continues on and on in several languages, yet the youth attending were not allowed to participate in anything. The ‘year of youth’ is a big hypocritical joke. There are no round tables, youth participation, discussion, or input taken; only a one-sided conference declaration that was completed before any of the young people arrived.

The most educational side event I went to was put on by IPPF called ‘strengthening youth leaders, advocacy from the ground up.’ The underlining message of the meeting was youth of the word need to get involved in government and the first rights that they need to petition for are sexual rights. They need to do so courageously, relentlessly, and to never give up the battle for their human right to have sex when ever, however, wherever, and with whomever they want.

It is so refreshing to hear that in countries that don’t have proper food, water and shelter are being taught that the first way to improve their lives is to ensure they have their sexual rights. Thanks, UN.  This is social justice at its very best.

 

With Rights come Responsibility

In AIDS, Homosexuality, UN on July 26, 2011 at 11:31 am

*Five young adults representing United Families International are currently attending the UN High Level Meeting on Youth in New York.  This is the first in a series of posts written by these individuals telling of experiences and their insights.

By Faith Goimarac

One key phrase of the UN conference on youth is “sexual rights.” I have been in developing countries where basic rights are being violated, such as the right to freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to clean water, right to vote, etc. I had never thought much of sexual rights, but the consensus here is that sexual rights are some of the most vital rights there are, even “essential and a fundamental part of our humanity.”

The problem with sexual rights is when they begin to affect or even harm others. Whenever we push for a new right to be recognized, we must realize that with every right comes a responsibility. What no one seems to realize here is that their life is not only their own. Ones actions affect many others. We are free to choose our actions, but not
the consequences and not who is affected by these consequences.

For instance, International Planned Parenthood Federation’s (IPPF) booklet called “Girls Decide” for young women living with HIV says, ‘you have the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual health.” This same booklet also explains that those living with HIV have the right to “decide if [emphasis added], when and how to disclose your HIV status.”

Say a young man living with HIV exercises his “right “ to not disclose his HIV status to one of his partners (all printed material here writes “partner” with a (s) at the end), and their method of protection fails. His right has just infected an innocent girl, taking away her right to health as HIV damages her immunity and most likely shortens her life.

Many here also agree that infecting a person with HIV should not be a crime, even though it is life-debilitating. Realizing that 76% of the people living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa are female only emphasizes that those exercising such sexual rights are forgetting about those responsibilities attached.

Every such event or publication published by IPPF or similar agencies expresses how “loving you is part of sexuality,” “you have the right,” and imply that your health and happiness are most important. How will our society be after a few years of ignoring the responsibilities that come with rights? The responsibilities that, if ignored, take away the rights, happiness, and health of others, especially the most vulnerable?

The family is an “other-centered” institution, and the love of self at the center of the sexual rights talk will be the root of what destroys the family.

Broken Promises: The UN and the U.S. are killing millions

In Abstinence, adoption, AIDS, UN on July 22, 2011 at 5:54 am

By Grace Sailor

As I delve into the book Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment Has Betrayed the Developing World by Harvard professor,  Edward C. Green, a  self-acclaimed lifelong, outspoken  liberal-progressive-leftist, I am mesmerized by his conservative views on the solution to what is referred to as the AIDS hyperepidemic.

As he begins to reveal the deception of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress by not acknowledging data that enforces the truth that positive “responsible” behavior such as abstinence and fidelity are a viable solution to the AIDS crisis. Instead, the U.N. and U.S. have poured billions of dollars into promoting condom distribution instead of promoting these positive behaviors. Dr. Green reports that “when Westerners convinced Botswana that condoms would stop AIDS, the results were catastrophic. About one in five adults there now have HIV.”

In the African continent, it is reported that over forty-six million people have been infected with HIV which has resulted in the death of over eighteen million natives.  Unlike the rest of the world, the majority of those infected in Africa are from heterosexual relationships, not through homosexuality or drug users. Sadly, this epidemic has left over twelve million AIDS orphans behind, and the numbers are still rising.

I have experienced Dr. Green’s frustration first hand as I have been involved at UNAIDS meetings and worked with an African AIDS prevention program for many years.  Dr. Green summarizes many of our experiences when he recounts testifing before a House subcommittee in 2006 in regard to data that supported fidelity and abstinence.  He writes that he “soon was wondering why they called it a “hearing” – because no one was listening.” After the hearing Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) informed Dr. Green that the “The rest of the world, quite frankly, disagrees with what you’re saying “and continued to state that “the rest of the world gets it.”

I have witnessed firsthand at high- level UNAIDS meetings, conservative world leaders promoting abstinence and fidelity be openly mocked and ridiculed by many fellow U.N. countries while attempting to give their speeches.  I was disgusted that these high-level leaders representing the world were acting like teenagers fighting for their rights for sexual freedom – at all costs. It was disturbing and frightening to see the lack of moral judgment among the world leaders.

Dr. Green’s book reminds me again of why it is so important that the pro-family movement fights for a voice within the international, national, and local governments.  It is an uphill battle – but a battle worth fighting. The results could save millions of lives – literally.

Homosexuality is the story of our mothers and fathers? Don’t think so.

In AIDS, DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Parenting, Same-Sex Marriage on June 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm

It’s June and it’s also “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride” month in the U.S.  Pres. Obama made it official with this proclamation.  We thought the proclamation’s opening sentence was particularly ironic:

The story of America’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union.”

There are not mothers and fathers without heterosexual behavior – male and female coming together.  Be it in the traditional way or even in a Petri dish.   It seems that Pres. Obama’s speech writers like to participate in the fiction of homosexuals bearing children – but we’ll give them credit; it’s a pretty sentence.  Ironic, too, that they used the term “perfect union.”

Pres. Obama goes on to list the ways that he has pandered and catered to homosexual advocates.  He lists in detail his promotion of the gay advocate’s wish list – all of which are to the detriment of religious freedom, traditional marriage and family values.  Read the proclamation here.

June is such a great month; school’s out, the beginning of summer; lots of family time, Father’s Day…

It’s a tragedy for a nation’s attention to instead be intentionally focused towards promoting a behavior that -when followed to its most obvious conclusion – assures that fatherhood (or motherhood) will never come to pass.

Myth Buster Monday: Are gay activists trying to indoctrinate school children?

In AIDS, Homosexuality, Myth Buster, Parental Rights, Parenting, Proposition 8, Schools on May 23, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Pro-family organizations have been warning parents about it for years – schools are being used as centers for indoctrinating children to accept homosexual behavior as acceptable, mainstream, and normal.   It appears that the homosexual activists have finally owned up to their own agenda and created a lot of controversy in their own ranks in the process.

The popular on-line magazine, Queerty, recently published the article:  “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”    As the title states, the author not only admits that indoctrination is their goal, but tells other members of the gay community that being shy about their agenda has not served them well – and that needs to change.

Here are a few excerpts:

“They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

There are many other quite “remarkable” lines in this article, but much of it is too perverse and vulgar to quote – so if you go to the actual article, you’ve been forewarned.

A quick perusal of the “comments” section runs about 4 to 1 in support of what the author has written, but some Queerty readers were not so pleased:  “What an outrageously irresponsible headline. How dare you jack up hits by tossing out incendiary language which can be abused and misused by our adversaries?”  Another comment read:  “Congratulations you irresponsible morons.  Your post was immediately picked up by NOM  [National Organization for Marriage] and is now the subject of a postYou bear full responsibility for whatever comes of this.”

“What has become of this” is the truth finally being clearly stated.  No one seems to be denying that the goal is to indoctrinate children; they only are debating the wisdom of saying it openly and letting parents and the heterosexual community as a whole know about it.

 

Are early sexual relationships OK or not?

In Abstinence, AIDS, Child Development, Homosexuality, Sex Education, UN on May 13, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Is the early sexualization of girls OK or not?  Those that push their “sexual and reproductive health” policies at the UN seem to be confused.  A quick perusal of some recent conference documents will show you language like this paragraph from the resolution negotiated at the recent Commission on Population and Development (2011).

 PP20. Recognizing that under-age and forced marriage and early sexual relationships have adverse psychological effects on girls and that early pregnancy and early motherhood entail complications during pregnancy and delivery and a risk of maternal mortality and morbidity that is much greater than average…,

 Did you notice the phrase “early sexual relationships have adverse psychological effects on girls…?”  We agree!  But here’s the insane part.  Just a few paragraphs earlier – in the same UN document – there is a paragraph touting the importance of “providing young people with comprehensive education on human sexuality, on sexual and reproductive health…”  You might not think that’s a big deal until you know what the UN-types consider to be good comprehensive education on human sexuality.

International Planned Parenthood and UNFPA have recently introduced their “It’s All ONE” program and it’s being promoted to the children of the world.  This new comprehensive sex education curriculum trains students in “pleasuring themselves and others” with masturbation, oral and anal sex, and the techniques for achieving an orgasm as well as promoting same-sex behavior, abortion rights, and legalization of prostitution.  This curriculum openly tells young people that it is not necessary to wait until marriage to have sexual relations.

The custom of under-age and forced marriage needs to end – now!   But to then see a phrase like “early sexual relationships have adverse psychological effects on girls” coming from people who promote anything and everything sexual for young people, leaves you shaking your head in amazement.

It appears that the radical left is totally OK with young girls having sex – just as long as they’re not married.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers