The Ruth Institute recently released a new e-book: Protecting Your Family from the Top 5 Gay Myths. Author Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., founder and president of the Ruth Institute, said, “This e-book will empower parents and grandparents to protect their loved ones.”
“The LGBTQ lobby tries to convince us that people are ‘born gay.’ This robs same sex attracted people of hope that their patterns of thoughts and feelings can ever change. And it intimidates parents into silence by persuading them that any resistance on their part will harm their child.”
“The LGBTQ ideology relies on ignorance, carefully cultivated deceptions, and half-truths.”
The e-book includes in-depth analyses of these common myths: Sexual orientation can be easily and scientifically defined —People are born either gay or straight – No one can change his or her sexual orientation — The attempt to change orientation can be harmful – and LGBTQ people experience mental health issues because society discriminates against them.
“This e-book contains personal testimonies of LGBT lifestyle recovery, which is otherwise hard to find. The mainstream media won’t provide it. Nor will such truths be allowed in public schools and libraries. Even internet debates are heavily censored.”
“For those who want the truth, Protecting Your Family from the Top 5 Gay Myths is available for free. We encourage readers interested in a healthy dose of non-woke reality to read it and share it with their family and friends.”
I am a physician who is trained in internal medicine at USCmed center and dermatology at UCLA. I have practiced both specialties over many years and arm presently semi retired. I have always had a storing interest in psychiatry and the interest became focused on homosexuality when a close member of my family became same sex attracted. As a result of this interest I joined the National Association for Therapy of Homosexuality (Narth) which is under the umbrella of The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. Although I don’t practice psychotherapy, I involve myself with the activities of this organization. I present this information to let you about my knowledge credentials In this area. I am writing to you to provide you with a focus on marriage that I haven’t seen. Everyone talks about the process of REDEFINING marriage. As far as I am concerned marriage cannot be redefined, it can only be deconstructed (and that is an important consideration). Marriage is almost biological. Every society and culture has instituted marriage. From the cultural standpoint it was done to connect the TWO biological parents for the flourishing of the children (this was necessary for the culture two progress). IF YOU BREACH THE MALE FEMALE PARADIGM, TWO NO LONGER HAS MEANIING. That is why marriage is male/female and cannot be anything else. Even in polygamous situations it is in its finality male female. If there were more than one male then those males could not be certain of paternity. So if someone asks “if two people love each other shouldn’t they be able to get married”, the retort should be WHY TWO? The answer would b “it takes a male and a female to produce a child”. What about elderly marriages or this that can’t have children? The reasoning is not as strong, but still recognizes that male and female represent a very important template that others should be made aware of. So “marriage” between two individuals of same sex is no more valid than “marriage” between 4 or 5 people of same sex. We hear a lot about children who have two moms or two dads. This is biologically impossible. You can have two step dads or. or one father-in law, but not two parents of of same sex. On could enquire that if you consider two moms as good, wouldn’t 3 or 4 moms be even better? Again let me reiterate ONCE YOU BREACH THE MALE FEMALE PARADIGM TWO NO LONGER HAS MEANING. I will present you with a quote from a great psychologist from University of Utah medical school Dean Byrd, “THAT WHICH IS NORMAL IS THAT WHICH FUNCTIONS AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION”. You can decide for yourself who the designer was, but nevertheless that is what was designed. I hope I have provided some useful information. Let me know what you think especially about the term deconstruction instead of redefinition