The
following has been garnered from studies and research carried out across the
world over the past few decades.
It
is not a homophobic document unless one considers the act of free thinking and
weighing up all the available evidence and coming to your own unbiased
conclusion homophobic.
And
on this very subject – it seems that there are those that say you either are pro
homosexual or homophobic. This is
very much lie the view taken by the TV licensing
organisation. – you either watch TV with a license or
you watch TV without a license.
(You can opt to not watch tv and not pay a license!)
There
is another option – you can disagree with the pro homosexual stance and not hate
those that do agree with it.
The
document has been included in its entirety – if there are any typos please let
me know and I’ll do my best to fix them.
If
you would like to visit the website for United Families International you can
get them here http://www.unitedfamiles.org/
My
thanks and credit goes to United families International for the work and
patience they have exhibited in the gathering of information and easy to read
format.
GUIDE
TO
ISSUES
Sexual
FAMILY
Orientation
UNITED
FAMILIES
INTERNATIONAL
ABOUT
UNITED
FAMILIES
INTERNATIONAL
United
Families International (UFI) is a 501(c)(3),
nondenominational, public charity
devoted
to strengthening the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society
at
the
local, national and international level. UFI is a worldwide organization,
accredited
with
the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. United
Families
International
seeks to educate government, religious and community leaders, and
citizens
at
the grass roots level on issues affecting the family and promotes public
policies
and
programs that preserve the traditional family.
UNITED
FAMILIES
INTERNATIONAL
Gilbert
AZ 85299-2630
(480)
632-5450 ~ fax (480) 892-4417
www.unitedfamilies.org
United
Families International has included what we believe to be the
best,
most
current research available at the time of publication of
this
Guide
to Family Issues. We recognize that there are thousands of
studies
available and that additional research is released
continuously.
If
you become aware of additional data that you believe should be
included
in
future editions of the Guide, please contact us at our mailing address,
or
email
us at guide@unitedfamilies.org.
COPYRIGHT
2004
UNITED
FAMILIES
INTERNATIONAL
C
Foreword
page
1
A
Guide
to Family Issues has
been prepared by United Families International as the most
comprehensive
resource available to provide concerned citizens and government
officials
with
factual scientific research and sound, logical arguments to support pro-family
positions
on
controversial issues.
Each
topic of the Guide examines a major social issue that impacts the family. The
Myth
and
Reality
section
provides insights into the most common misconceptions and
misrepresentations
on
each topic. The Fast
Facts and Commentary section
then provides a wealth of peerreviewed
social
science data, research and thoughtful commentary to debunk these
myths
and
misrepresentations.
The
Guide has been designed to enable the average person to articulate pro-family
positions
on
difficult topics and will be an indispensable tool in many
situations;
Lobbying
government officials on family issues
Legislative
debates
School
Board meetings
Preparing
letters to the Editor
Classroom
debates
Community
involvement
Employment
Discussions
with friends and neighbors.
Although
United Families International promotes religious freedom and is supported by
people from many faiths across the world, we do not use religious arguments to
support our positions.
This
can be counterproductive when working to influence public policy makers who tend
to base decisions on facts. The overwhelming preponderance of social science
data and research invariably support the pro-family side of every issue
considered in this Guide.
A
Guide to Family Issues continues to be a work in progress as new studies and
research are constantly being released. Updates on each issue can be found on
our website as new data becomes available.
United
Families International hopes that this Guide to Family Issues provides
motivation and encouragement and will aid responsible citizens and officers of
government in the neverending battle to preserve and
protect the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Marcia
Barlow
Managing
Editor
Table
of Contents
Foreword
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Introduction.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Myth
vs. Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Fast
Facts and Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Unhealthy
Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Unstable
Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Domestic
Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Child
Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 23
Homosexual
Parenting & Homosexual Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Genetics
and Homosexuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Treatment
of Homosexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Incidence
of Homosexual Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 28
Homosexuality
and Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
Homosexuality
and Hate Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Homosexual
Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Homosexual
Activism in the Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Where
Can I Get More Information? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Appendix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Introduction
Gender
and sexual orientation issues are at the heart of many current public policy
battles affecting the family in the
United
Families International believes that gender confusion has a devastating effect
on individuals and their ability to lead healthy, productive lives and to form
stable nuclear families. In order to stem the tide of homosexual activism, to
thwart the attempts to redefine marriage in an effort to reestablish society based on alternative family forms, and
to preserve and protect marriage and the family, United Families International
presents a Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation.
Sexual
Orientation
Throughout
history, societies have recognized the essential role of human reproduction to
the successful perpetuation of the human race. Human biology has dictated that
it always takes both a male and a female to produce children and nature has
prescribed that most adults are naturally attracted to the opposite sex. For
various reasons, however, a very small percentage of individuals develop
different sexual orientations. Gender is an innate
component
and
an essential characteristic of individual identity and
purpose.
Contrary
to false information spread by homosexual activists through the media, we know
that differing sexual orientations are not innate and immutable, but rather
represent developmental disorders that often can be prevented or successfully
treated. Individuals may not choose to have homosexual feelings, but they can
choose to act upon these feelings or seek help to overcome them. No one is "born
that way." Policies that would normalize homosexuality
by
equating homosexual behavior with innate
characteristics such as race or ethnicity should be
opposed.
Those
who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior
choose to downplay the significant evidence regarding the serious,
life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
Empirical data and social science research clearly demonstrate that homosexual
behavior is not just another alternative lifestyle or
even a sexual "preference"; it is an unhealthy and harmful practice that leads
to injury, disease and early death.
Homosexual
advocacy does not promote the best interests of individuals, families or
society.
United
Families International is opposed to verbal abuse and violence against
homosexually attracted persons and seeks to offer compassion and assistance to
help those experiencing same-sex attractions overcome these
tendencies.
Sexual
Orientation
page
7
MYTH
VS.
REALITY
page
8
MYTH
Research
shows that there is a .gay gene.. Homosexuality is
genetic. Homosexuality
is not a genetically encoded condition.
REALITY
There
is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute
biological, genetic orhormonal causation for
homosexuality. Research by Dr. Simon LeVay reportedly
showed genetic support for sexual orientation. The media reported a "gaygene" and LeVay was later
forced to make the clarification,".I did NOT find a
genetic cause for orientation
."
Homosexual activist and molecular biologist Dean Hamer’s study claiming the existence of a homosexual gene
has not been replicated nor scientifically acknowledged. Studies that claim to
prove homosexuality is genetic have been purposefully designed from a homosexual
advocacy perspective and seek to convince society that homosexuality is innate,
and therefore normal, and should be recognized as such by
society.
A
small percentage of the population may have a predisposition toward homosexual
feelings, but this does not mean such people engage in homosexual behaviour as a
result of genetic causation. Predisposition toward something does not mean that
it is inevitable or that such a predisposition cannot or should not be resisted
and overcome. Some people may have a predisposition toward alcoholism, yet we do
not affirm their disposition, but rather treat their condition and help them
change. Current evidence suggests that environmental, familial and personal
influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies.
Seventy years of therapeutic counselling and case studies show a remarkable
consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted
gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully
developed in childhood.
(www.narth.com)
Although
individuals who experience homosexual attractions and thoughts may not have
chosen these tendencies, they do have a choice as to whether or not they will
act on the feelings. It is the acting on these feelings that constitutes
homosexuality. It is essential
to
remember that homosexuality is defined entirely by sexual behavior. Many people have changed their sexual orientation
and live successful heterosexual lives, which often include marriage and raising
children.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #83-97.
MYTH
Homosexual
behavior is innate.Homosexuality is .what a person is..
REALITY
What
a person does
(behavior) should never beequated
with what a person is.
No
human being can or should be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. Impulses
cannot compel behavior or identities without a
person’s consent. If people "are" their actions, then what does that say about
the thief, the anorexic, or the prostitute? Ninety-eight percent of the
population do not define their very being and purpose in life by their sexual
behavior.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #83-97.
MYTH
Homosexuality
is unchangeable.
REALITY
Reputable
studies and decades of successful treatment show that homosexual behavior can be changed.
Thousands
of former homosexuals are testimony to the possibility of change.
Homosexual
activists
claim that homosexuality is an unchangeable condition and insist that therapy
does not work. They attempt to justify their claim by defining success in
absolute terms stipulating that: 1) Before treatment a person must have never
experienced opposite-sex attraction and never engaged in heterosexual relations;
and 2) After treatment the person must be fully
heterosexual
in behavior and never have another same-sex thought or
temptation for the rest of his/her life. This would be the equivalent of saying
that no diet program works unless the person never gains back one ounce of
weight that was lost and is never tempted to overeat again. United Families
International supports the right to therapy for homosexually attracted
individuals. For a listing of groups in the
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #90-97.
MYTH
Homosexual
behavior should be considered normal as a result of
the decision
made
by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973 which
removed
homosexuality
from its list of .disorders..
REALITY
The
decision to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(DSM) was made after APA leaders and members had endured several years of
intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant
homosexual activist groups. (Ronald
Bayer, "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis,"
Princeton University Press, 1987.)
Homosexual
activist groups pressured APA committees to remove homosexuality from the APA’s approved list of disorders. In spite of the long
documented history showing that therapists have helped homosexual clients reduce
and change their homosexual
tendencies,
professionals who persist in viewing and treating homosexuality as a changeable
condition are labeled unenlightened, prejudiced,
homophobic and unethical. There
is currently a movement within the APA to normalize pedophilia that appears to be following the same path to
legitimization as homosexuality.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#1-66,
90-97.
MYTH
Government
discriminates against homosexuals and denies them their basic rights by not
legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexuals share loving relationships and should
be allowed to marry. It
is not discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
REALITY
Homosexuals
are afforded exactly the same right as heterosexuals; they can marry one person
of the opposite sex. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, or a
person who is already married. Regardless of whether those restrictions may
disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists and
homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is
the
nature and purpose of marriage itself. Allowing homosexuals to marry would not
simply expand marriage but would redefine it. Contrary to the popular notions of
today’s culture,
marriage
is not just about loving relationships, even where there is longstanding commitment.
Governments
and societies have granted certain institutional benefits and privileges to
heterosexual marriage because these unions have the biological potential to
provide societies with a tangible benefit-- children.
Two
men or two women sleeping together to obtain a sensory experience (sterile sex)
provide societies with no measurable benefit. A stable marriage between a man
and a woman is the only relationship that has the biological potential to both
produce children and to then
provide
the best and most successful environment in which to rear the next generation.
Heterosexual marriage is a government imperative. This is not an issue of love,
rights or sexual preference. It is an issue of which activities and unions
provide societies with a net benefit and which do not. There is no societal
benefit to unions based fundamentally on genital stimulation and the
perception
of
love. Every man and woman who marries (whether age 24 or 74, fertile or
infertile) can
give
any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Most heterosexual unions
will produce children. Homosexual unions will never produce children nor can
they provide a
child
with both a mother and a father. If
the law abandons the fundamental principle that
reproductive
sex within marriage has a unique role, there will be no basis upon which to draw
distinctions between multiple types of relationships such as polygamy,
incestuous couplings, or any type of chosen loving relationship. The same
arguments
used
to justify the legal recognition of same-sex marriage can also be used to
justify legal protection for any consensual sexual practice or form of
marriage.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#28-40,
67-82, 105-134.
MYTH
If
two people love each other, they should be allowed to
marry.
REALITY
"Your
love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something
personal - it is a status, an office . that joins you together." (DietrichBonhoeffer)
Marriage
has a far more fundamental and influential role than simply a public or legal
documentation of "love." We
love many people that we don’t marry. If
feelings of love or affection were all that mattered, fathers should be able to
marry their own daughters, brothers could marry sisters, and people could marry
their dogs. Were there no restrictions
on
marriage, the possible arrangements would be endless. If marriage is based
solely on one’s affections, the need for companionship, the desire for genital
stimulation, or wanting increased benefits, then there is no logical reason for
not legalizing polygamous, incestuous or pedophillic
marriages.
The
redefinition of marriage would reduce it to a commitment between any individuals
or entities who love and share resources. There are many relationships in
society that would meet the new definition. Marriage is the union of the two
sexes, not just the union of two
people--an
important distinction. Marriage is the union of two families, and the foundation
for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property, and
providing the optimal environment for raising children. To fully understand the
importance of marriage to societies across the millennia, it is useful to
remember that the concept of "love" as the most
important
element of marriage is largely a western cultural phenomenon. Arranged marriages
are still the norm in many societies.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#28-40,
105-115.
MYTH
Allowing
homosexuals to marry does not harm or negatively impact
anyone.
REALITY
Redefining
marriage to include same-sex unions not only devalues marriage, but it
diminishes the rightsof children.
Children
have a fundamental right to a mother and a father; to be born within the bonds
of
matrimony
to parents who honor their marital vows with complete
fidelity. Every time a child is robbed of these rights there are negative social
consequences. Diminishing a child diminishes every person in the
community.
Who
gave children the right to a father and a mother?
Nature
itself.
A unisex union will never produce a child. No matter how you slice the petri dish (artificial insemination, alternate surrogacy, or
any alternate method to procure a child), there’s still a male sperm (father)
and female egg (mother). Homosexual adoption requires that at least one
biological parent legally sever their natural bond and render a child
either
motherless
or fatherless. By legalizing same-sex marriage/adoption we would intentionally
be stripping children of their fundamental right to a father and a mother. Fatherlessness or
motherlessness
has serious consequences. We know this from a 40-year experiment with
dismantling the institution of marriage which has given us an epidemicof out-of-wedlock sex and child bearing,
skyrocketing divorce rates, alternate families, and a deteriorating social
fabric. If we look at the above list of negative consequences resulting from a
breakdown of
the
family, and then examine the startling, well-documented statistics showing their
negative impact on children, we can draw only one conclusion: government can
never create enough programs to compensate for motherlessness and fatherlessness.
Enduring
marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for the social,
physical, mental, emotional and economic development of men, women and children.
Every deviation from the ideal model of enduring monogamous marriage between a
man and a woman brings hardship to men, women and especially children. The role
of government/society should be to
affirm and strengthen traditional marriage, not dilute it with notions of
homosexual rights and same-sex marriage.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#1-10,
14-15, 23-82, 105-115.
MYTH
Homosexual
partners can be great parents and should be allowed to adopt
children.
REALITY
The
concept of adoption was not created to transcend biology in order to give adults
(heterosexual or homosexual) more choice in family form. Adoption was created to
meet the needs of children whose parents could not or would not care for them.
Adoption
has never been about the desires or needs of the adults involved, but rather
adoption is about securing both a mother and a father for a child.
As
such, homosexuals do not meet the basic requirement of adoption, while married,
yet infertile heterosexual couples do.
Allowing
homosexual partners to adopt would purposely and intentionally create fatherless
and motherless children with all of the associated developmental handicaps and
negative outcomes.
Children
in homosexual households do not experience firsthand exposure to three of the
most important relationships required for healthy social development:
male/female, husband/wife, or mother/father. Adoption law should, first and
foremost, protect the
best
interest of children and their right to a mother and a father. Human experience
and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in
married, mother/father households.
When
considering the negative health and social consequences of homosexual behavior, adoption of children by homosexuals cannot be
considered in
the
best interest of the child. To
allow homosexual couples to adopt would require complete disregard of the
statistics on the high mortality rate from HIV/AIDS, and high rate of alcohol
and drug abuse, as well as the general instability and violent nature of
homosexual relationships. All of these can be harmful to the adopted child,
directly or indirectly.
Efforts
by homosexuals to support their gay-adoption argument by citing the numbers of
children in the foster care system needing love, and thus adoption, are
misleading. Less than 20 percent of the children in the foster care system are
even eligible for adoption. The
problems
in the foster care system and Child Protective Services are less a call for
homosexual adoption and more a clear statement about government’s lack of
ability to replace the crucial role of the biological father and mother bound
together in a stable
marriage.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#1-10,
14-15, 23-82, 105-115.
MYTH
Homosexuals
suffer from the same types of discrimination that minorities experienced prior
to the civil rights movement.
REALITY
Discrimination
on the basis of gender or race is vastly different from discrimination on the
basis of sexual practice. Many
veterans of the civil rights movement are against efforts by homosexual
activists to seek special rights and benefits based on sexual behavior, that unlike race, is neither
inherent, involuntary or immutable. Homosexual acts involve behavior and choice. "Skin color
is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a
convenient, but invalid argument." (General
Colin Powell) Governments
should not grant special rights to the homosexual community for what is a behaviorally-based identity rather than a true genetic one.
The
courts have specifically rejected the recognition that homosexuals as a group
are entitled to civil rights that are routinely granted to true minority groups
based on such factors as race or national origin.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#83-97,
120-134.
MYTH
Homosexuals
are discriminated against when they do not receive the same rights and benefits
(tax breaks, insurance, and other types of preferential treatment) as married
heterosexual couples.
REALITY
If,
as homosexuals state, they are discriminated against in tax breaks, insurance or
other types of preferential treatment, then so are all single people. Single
individuals do not receive certain institutionalized benefits. These benefits
are provided by governments and societies for children; to facilitate and assist
a married couple in what is a societal and governmental
imperative--bearing
and effectively rearing the next generation.
Homosexual
couples can already, without marriage, protect their basic interests with
simple, inexpensive contracts. Homosexuals
can easily obtain legal documents to establish hospital visitation and medical
decision-making rights, grant power of attorney,
have
joint ownership of property, get joint bank accounts, have inheritance rights,
be life insurance beneficiaries, etc. Any additional benefits provided by
marriage were put in place for the benefit of children and the parents that
created them. Because of the importance of the heterosexual marital contract to
the state, this union has enjoyed an honored role for
centuries. No one has made a convincing case that homosexual marriage adds
enough value to society to justify granting such special
benefits.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #120-134.
MYTH
The
reason the homosexual community has high rates of promiscuity is because they
are denied the right to marry. Granting homosexual men the right to marry will
provide the motivation for them to form stable monogamous
relationships.
REALITY
It
is not marriage, but women in marriage, that help to contain and channel the
male sexual appetite. Nature
designed the male-female pair to complement and balance each other. By contrast,
same-sex mating seems to drive male partners to extremes. Instead of balancing
each other, men who have sex with men reinforce each other in their
sexual
behavior.
Note the promiscuous tendencies of men in general. Unbalanced by
women, these tendencies lead to the anonymous, no-brakes promiscuity manifest in
the homosexual community.
Validating
homosexual behavior by giving it the societal stamp of
approval via legalization of samesex marriage is
highly unlikely to curb this natural male tendency towards
promiscuity.
Within
the broader context of the burgeoning sexual revolution, the transient,
promiscuous and unfaithful relationships that are characteristic of homosexuals
would become part of society’s image and understanding of marriage. This could
only add to the downward spiral of fewer marriages being permanent, exclusive
and faithful. There is little room for optimism that legal unions would change
homosexuals for the better; it seems far more probable that homosexuals would
change marriage for the worse.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#28-40,
126-129.
MYTH
You
can’t legislate morality.
REALITY
We
can and we do legislate morality. The
all-too common contention that "government must not regulate morality" is
nonsense--unless the goal is to eliminate all government. Governmental
decisions, from welfare to clean air to sexual conduct to speed
limits,
always
involve moral values. Law
is nothing more than a public expression of a society’s morality.
So
the real question is: "Whose
morality
will we legislate?"
The
question of competing moralities can be answered by this simple test: "Do the
kinds of behaviors/ actions/programs that I want to
create laws for-- or against--bring about good or bad consequences to society?"
Based on society’s best interest, laws are made to encourage specific behaviors and discourage others. If homosexuality leads to
identifiable negative consequences, then society has a moral obligation to
regulate it and limit its influence.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #1-82.
MYTH
The
mental and emotional problems that homosexuals experience are due to the
straight community’s persecution and intolerance of their
lifestyle.
REALITY
If
this were true, then one would expect to find lower rates of suicide and mental
illness among homosexuals in areas where homosexuality has been mainstreamed and
widely accepted for decades (i.e.,
substance
abuse, alcoholism, and homosexual domestic violence in areas where homosexuality
is more widely accepted. The high rates of emotional trauma in homosexuals are
not induced by society, but rather are the result of deviant (unnatural) sexual
behavior that negatively impacts their emotional and
physical health.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY #1-46.
MYTH
What
people do "in the privacy of their own bedrooms" is not anyone else’s
business.
REALITY
Private
behavior often has very public
consequences.
Homosexual
behavior has implications far beyond the bedroom.
Statistics clearly show that
homosexual
behavior is destructive and bears high costs, not only
to the individual, but to society. For example, each year the
disease
stemming from unhealthy sexual practices. There are many consensual behaviors occurring in the "privacy of a bedroom" like drug
use and prostitution, that current laws and customs have deemedharmful because of their negative effect on society.
Other activities like rape and incest also happen in bedrooms. The "my bedroom,
my business" rationale
stands
up to scrutiny only
if
a society is willing to say that there should be no government involvement nor
law regarding any
kind of
behavior. Otherwise, citizens have to go through the
process of determining what type of behavior truly
is
good
for society. That determination is the basis of all law.
The
2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Lawrence
v. Texas)
decriminalizing homosexual sex has further opened the door for children to be
taught in public schools that homosexual sodomy is normal, healthy, and is the
equivalent of marital sex.
legal
it is coming out of the bedroom and increasingly into the classroom. If same-sex
marriage is legalized, there will be no principled or legal basis upon which the
promotion of homosexuality in the public school system could be
prevented.
SEE
FAST FACTS AND COMMENTARY
#1-82,
105-115.