Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience, has been discussed previously on Uncommon Descent (see here and here ). Well, it’s in the news again.

I expect many readers will have heard by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. The Declaration – a Christian statement drafted in 2009 that supports religious liberty, traditional marriage and right to life issues – now has 479,532 supporters. The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning that it contained no objectionable material.

Last month, around Thanksgiving, the Manhattan Declaration application for iPhones and iPads was suddenly dropped, after the activist group Change.org gathered more than 7,700 signatures for a petition, after claiming that the application promoted “anti-gay” bigotry and “homophobia,” and that it attacked both “equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” Under a headline entitled, “Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application,” the petition drive concluded with the words: “Let’s send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.

The petition seems to have had the desired effect. Catholic News Agency contacted Apple on December 2 for the reason behind its decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration application. Spokesperson Trudy Muller said via phone that the company “removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” Strange. Why the 4+ rating, then?

I believe in calling spade a spade, so I’ll just come right out and say it: Change.org lied to its readers and to Apple about the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.

In their online petition to Steve Jobs, Change.org made the following deceitful claim:

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate…

Apple’s reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

Oh, really? Let’s see what the Manhattan Declaration actually says about the unborn and about gay marriage.

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

“The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.” “Ours is … a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.” Is this hateful language? You tell me.

I notice that Change.org speaks of “choice” in its online petition drive, oblivious to the fact that the innocent human being whose life is terminated during an abortion is denied a choice.

In defense of traditional marriage

“What about gays and lesbians?” you ask. Again, not a trace of hate. In the section on “Marriage,” the Manhattan Declaration affirms “the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life.” Obviously that includes gays and lesbians. The Declaratio­n goes on:

We acknowledg­e that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorou­s conduct and relationsh­ips, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct… We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives…

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”

As I write this, more than 35,523 people have signed an online petition to have the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app reinstated. I would strongly urge readers to lend their support to the petition by signing it here or here.

Let’s send a strong message to Apple that giving a group of concerned citizens a platform to express their opinions, and then withdrawing that platform without warning, is bad business.

Comments
markf (#289) In answer to your query: total self-giving means holding nothing of yourself back, physically, mentally or emotionally, when you express your love for your sexual partner. A gay couple may intend that their sex act be an act of total self-giving, and may even give as much as they possibly can of themselves, on an emotional level. Nevertheless, their act fails to qualify as an act of total self-giving, because there is one vital aspect of their being which they are not attempting to express, and which they could not express in the act, even if they wished to do so: the procreative aspect. The procreative aspect of sex can only be expressed with a partner of the opposite sex. Consequently, no matter how hard they try, a gay couple cannot engage in an act of total self-giving, even if they mistakenly intend to do so. By the way, when I wrote in step 3 of my argument that "An act which is by its very nature incapable of realizing the intentions of the actor is a wrong act," you should read that as meaning: "An act which is premised upon a mistaken intent is a wrong act." An infertile couple, on the other hand, are engaging in an act which is typically (for most married people) potentially procreative. Moreover, they are doing nothing to block the procreative aspect of that act. Their sex act fails to be procreative, only because of accidental circumstances which are beyond their control. Consequently, their act of love still qualifies as an act of total self-giving, as they are doing everything that a fertile couple does when they make love. I hope that answers your questions. And now I really must retire for the evening.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
VJT:
I think the question is not what it impact it would have on his marriage, or on mine, but what it would have on our children’s and our grand-children’s future marriages. Would it weaken their sense that marriage is a life-long, monogamous partnership, “until death do us part?” Almost certainly, because of the brain-washing they’d get at school.
Two comments before I head back to class: 1. What makes you think gays are less likely to have life-long monogamous relationships? Frankly, heterosexuals don't exactly have a great track record in that regard. Given that same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenom, shouldn't we be looking at the divorce rates for gays in countries where they can get married? 2 I don't understand why people are so scared that public schools will teach students an unhealthy view of marriage. Wouldn't it make more sense to improve their parenting skills or send their kids to religious schools (or home school) that will teach the right things?San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
VJT
Rendering procreation impossible before getting married is wrong. It does not follow, however, that a married couple who are currently infertile should do everything they can do render procreation possible – i.e. seek out every fertility treatment they read about. There is such a thing as trying too hard.
So, it would seem that your philosophy would deny marriage to a straight couple that has no interest in children and has taken steps to ensure that doesn't happen. So, you devise a little thought experiment to avoid that.
The point of my peculiar thought experiment was not to show that elderly people should have children, but that they could, hypothetically speaking. If their infertility were reversed, they’d still be the same people. That was what I meant when I wrote that age is not a natural impediment, in the strictest sense of “natural.” If you use the word “natural” to mean “in the ordinary course of events,” then of course aging is natural. It is something that happens to all of us. However, there is no reason in principle why it could not be delayed or partially reversed.
So, your rationale to deny gay marriage is because of procreation. But, you are willing to allow straight couples who have no capability to procreate to marry because in some future, science-fiction-comes-true world scientists might figure out how to reverse a hysterectomy or stop menopause? So Mark asks the obvious question regarding gay marriage if scientists figure out a way for two women to procreate and you resond:
Even if science could enable a lesbian couple to have a daughter, it would still remain the case that a lesbian sex act could never produce one. Thus a lesbian sex act could never be described as a procreative act. It lacks that dimension.
So, it isn't about procreation at all, but about the Approved Types of Sex.San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
StephenB@282:
Yes, provided we amend that to read “only those acts that are ‘open to’ procreation.” If a married couple cannot have children, their acts would not “lead to” procreation but could, nevertheless, be open to it and therefore moral. Also, one can make a case for other kinds of sexual acts if they are not brought to completion and used as a preliminary to sexual intercourse.
While I don't agree personally with the "only for procreation" idea, this approach certainly has the merit of at least trying to define what acts are moral or not for Christians. However, wouldn't the last sentence also allow uncompleted anal sex as a preliminary to intercourse? (I'm just going on logic here - the downside of that particular process is obvious to me as well as anyone else.) Regarding natural family planning - the efficacy seems to vary widely from study to study, which suggests that many factors are involved in success. There is certainly much to commend it. I can only refer to my own experience. I've tried it once. He's now in elementary school. :-)mikev6
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
324 "Keep on the quixotic quest for objective morality. In the real world, meaning depends centrally on difference." Yet, in the real world, you can provide no warrant for your views.Upright BiPed
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
I would argue yes. Just as banning inter-racial marriage is unconstitutional. Being aware of sex distinctions is not the moral equivalent of racial discrimination, otherwise having opposite sex bathrooms would be as unjust as having separate bathrooms for blacks and whites once was. There has never been a sex blind society in all of history. We will never have a sex blind society, nor is it clear why we should want one. A few notes on everything that you would have to be ignorant of and blind towards:
Involved fathers typically initiate more active play and are more tolerant of physical exploration by infants than mothers....In their efforts to encourage infant competence, mothers are generally more concerned with verbal-intellectual teaching, whereas fathers are more oriented toward active, arousing play and fostering autonomy and independence. (Henry B. Biller, Father and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development, Auburn House, Westport, Connecticut, 1993) In a study of 42 families of young children, mothers were more likely to use indirect forms of communication such as questions, directives, and suggestions, while fathers tended to use direct forms of communications such as imperatives. Mothers in the study were found to be less direct and tried to elicit compliance and cooperation from their children. Fathers in the study offered a model of directiveness and self assertion. In measures of compliance or obedience toward their mothers and fathers, although girls did not differ in their rates of compliance to mothers and fathers, boys showed higher levels of compliance to their fathers than to their mothers. (Thomas G. Power, Marianne McGrath, Sheryl O. Hughes, and Sarah H. Manire, "Compliance and Self-Assertion:Young Children’s Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers," Developmental Psychology, 30 (1994): 980-989) The author puts play in a central position in his model, as central to fathering as nurturance to mothering, and then ascribes an essential function to it, that of opening the child up to the world, as essential to development as providing a sense of security. The author presents the case that the unique aspects of father child play make positive contributions to early development. (Do Fathers Just Want to Have Fun? Commentary on Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship By Roggman, Lori A.)
mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Lunch time! I thought I'd peak in on Kairosfocus.
I gave a very specific answer, one that involved my own and three other marriages — never mind the terms you attempted to dictate were most loaded.
The question I asked was how gay marriage would hurt your marriage. You mentioned several marriages, but made no argument as to how instituting gay marriage would hurt them.
Rather than continue to live in just one aspect of the sort of situation that Yogyakarta agenda would precipitate, I found it better to live with my family under the threat of an active explosive type volcano.
So, you do believe your marriage would be harmed by instituting gay marriage wherever you lived before. Okay. I am sorry to hear that. When I asked my parents that question they answered that their marriage wouldn't be harmed because the only thing that affects the success or failure of their marriage are their actions and behaviors towards each other. To the extent they honor each other, they sanctify the relationship. Two gay guys getting married has no impact on them at all.
Also about that imposition of a police state, censorship and widespread violations of conscience for people in homes, schools, hospitals, churches and businesses as well as areas of residence will imply.
So, again it seems your issue is not gay marriage per se, but some other radical agenda that you perceive goes along with it.
Finally, I do not at all appreciate your twisting my remarks on a widespread breakdown of family due to sexual chaos that would be rendered irreversible by the homosexualisation of marriage, into “blame it on the gays.”
My apologies. Since you seem to want to force the same solution on all gays, whether they are radical activists or just people wanting to live their life in peace and quiet, I assumed wrongly what you were saying. Sorry. I does make me wonder something about your later comment "I suspect MOST actual homosexuals do not identify with the activist movement. "gay" is not a synonym for "homosexual." If your issue is with the activists and their radical authoritarian agenda, wouldn't it make sense to work with the other homosexuals to craft a same-sex marriage law that preserves your free speech rights and the rights of conscience of religious organizations? Work with the "good homosexuals" to marginalize the radicals?
If you had taken the time to read my words more carefully, or to actually read the point made in the Manhattan Declaration, you will see that the precise point was that sexual chaos is a much broader problem, but the homosexualist agenda on marriage would push things across a tipping point;
I see a lot of such predictions, but no one ever says how that works. There is gay marriage in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. What is the negative results in those countries that has resulted from gay marriage.San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Clive (316)
Better and Best would have no meaning without an objective morality.
Keep on the quixotic quest for objective morality. In the real world, meaning depends centrally on difference.LarTanner
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
markf (307) Just a quick answer before I retire for the evening. You wrote:
vj – if you are going to authorise any act that could lead to procreation subject to suitable scientific miracles than you must allow the possibility that sex between a lesbian couple might have a daughter through some bizarre feat of future medicine (a son is of course ruled out because neither has a Y chromosome).
Even if science could enable a lesbian couple to have a daughter, it would still remain the case that a lesbian sex act could never produce one. Thus a lesbian sex act could never be described as a procreative act. It lacks that dimension. The point I was trying to make with elderly or infertile couples is that the act they are performing is the same kind of act as the act performed by fertile heterosexual couples who are not trying to impede procreation. In the latter case, the sex act is (at least sometimes) a procreative act. If it is morally permissible (as it surely must be) for a married man and woman to engage in a procreative act, then I would argue that it is also morally permissible for a married man and woman who are infertile through no fault of their own, and who are doing nothing to impede procreation, to engage in the same kind of act. That was the sole point of my sci-fi illustration: to show that it is only through an accident of circumstance (which scientists could theoretically fix) that an infertile couple's act of love is robbed of its procreative aspect. A lesbian sex act, on the other hand, could never be a procreative act. My sci-fi example was not intended to suggest that infertile couples should be seeking fertility treatments, regardless of their age or the cost of the treatment. On the topic of homosexual sex, I'd like to recommend a short online article by ex-atheist Jennifer Fulwiler, who converted to Catholicism a few years ago. Her article, What will I tell my gay friends? is extremely well-written, easy to read and makes some very telling points about what sex is for. #289 Re your case of the couple where the woman finds out she has Huntington's disease, I'm afraid I would not regard either a vasectomy or a hysterectomy as a moral option. Both acts are a kind of self-mutilation, which involve destroying an aspect of your whole being: your fertility. It's a you-versus-your body mindset again. On the other hand, if they got married and had sex, knowing that their offspring might inherit the disease, I would not regard that as a wicked act. There can be no such thing as wrongful procreation. Inadvisable, yes; wrong, no.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
This is a key point. Sexual gratification for the sake of sexual gratification alone is always inflationary. Since the initial thrill is driven, in part, by a desire to violate the natural moral law... It's interesting that "perverts" understand the laws that they are perverting. Similarly, those who have been conditioned to feel that they must support homosexuality here because they know a nice gay and so on assume natural law as well. They appeal to it in arguments about how bad it is to even mention perversions like zoophilia. But given their supposed subjective morality based on consent or harm there isn't anything wrong with such disorders per se. After all, we use animals for our own ends all the time, including eating them and we don't ask their consent to do so. The only reason that the very same people who seek to undermine natural law and civilization in one case use it an excuse to get self-righteous in another ("How dare you even mention that!" Etc.) is because they already know that there is order to things. Like "perverts," they are appealing to and using that knowledge and yet attacking and doing away with it at the same time.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
tribune7@275:
Nor does the prohibition about multiple wives. If a state should pass a law banning impotent men from marriage would that be unconstitutional?
I would argue yes. Just as banning inter-racial marriage is unconstitutional. I see marriage as a useful and fulfilling entity even if children are not part of the equation, and inability to have children, like race, should not be a barrier.mikev6
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
KF (314)
could you kindly provide warrant — beyond, “might makes ‘right’ . . . ” — for why we should be bound by your views on “civil rights, justice, and economic equity.”
No, I cannot. I don't think you should be bound to my views on these things. Now a question for you. Assuming we want to live in the same society together, do you think it's possible for us to negotiate reasonable definitions of civil rights, etc., and to establish administration of them?LarTanner
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden, I base my standard on the Bible, which does not in my view condemn consensual sexual practices within marriage. (The sin of Onan has to do with a refusal to perpetuate his brother's tribe -- I think it's stretching it to say that the sin is really about where the semen lands.) I ask you, as I asked StephenB: why is the argument from tradition compelling in the case of condemning sexual practices within marriage but not compelling in the case of outlawing homosexual practices outside of marriage?QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
---mynym [quoting Kirk and Madsen]: ---"At first, the increasingly jaded gay man seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. Two major avenues diverge in this yellow wood, two nerves upon which to press: that of raunch, and that of aggresion." ---The pursuit of sexual happiness via raunch-fetishism, water sports and copraphilia, and so forth-seeks, essentially, to restore…thrills by restoring the ‘dirty,’ hence forbidden…a new barrier of ‘resistance’ to overcome. Unfortunately, this, as with all attempts to sustain the furor sexualis of youth by sheer intensification of some peripheral aspect of the experience, is doomed to failure: mere amplification of ‘dirtiness’ results, finally, in mere wallowing in filth… (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :304)" This is a key point. Sexual gratification for the sake of sexual gratification alone is always inflationary. Since the initial thrill is driven, in part, by a desire to violate the natural moral law, the violator becomes ever more comfortable with the violation and finds it increasingly less stimulating. Thus, to maintain the desired stimulation, he must engage in increasingly outrageous violations of the natural moral law [fisting, violence, admission of excretory functions etc.]StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
QuiteID, You're evading the question StephenB asked you:
On what standard do you base that judgment? I have already explained the Church’s interpretation of the natural moral law and provided the rationale [the unitive and procreative component of the sexual act cannot be separated]. If you disagree with that standard, please explain why.
What is your standard, and what is it based on?Clive Hayden
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
LarTanner, You're evading the issue. You were asked:
Frankly, no one from your side attempted to show OBJECTIVELY why religious morality (Christian in this case) is wrong?
To which you answered:
Who said it’s wrong? Christianity is right and good on very many things. But it’s not right and good on everything, and it’s not the only show in town–or necessarily the best.
You said it was wrong. And if there is a "best" to be compared to, then there is an objective moral standard. Unless there is a fixed point as a destination, you cannot come closer to it. Better and Best would have no meaning without an objective morality.Clive Hayden
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
StephenB, we're not going to agree on issues of state. But I think it might be worth continuing this part of the dialogue. I wrote
(For the record, in case anybody cares, I think the sexual practices I listed earlier are permissible within marriage.
You responded:
My question persists. On what standard do you base that judgment? I have already explained the Church’s interpretation of the natural moral law and provided the rationale [the unitive and procreative component of the sexual act cannot be separated]. If you disagree with that standard, please explain why. Provide your own standard, the rationale for that standard, and justify it from a Biblical/Natural law perspective.
I think the Natural Law argument is weak, and the Biblical arguments prohibiting such acts within marriage are nonexistent. The Catholic Church (which was the sole Western authority on such issues until the Reformation) built its views over time less and less on the Bible and more and more on a highly elaborated and specific theology that I don't share. The argument from tradition is not compelling. Homosexuality was illegal, and its illegality supported by the Church, in most Western societies until very recently. Why do you (and vjtorley, and kairosfocus, etc.) all reject the argument from tradition in that case? If you accepted the argument from tradition, you should support the legal prohibition of homosexual behavior.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
LT: On the -- I think reasonable -- assumption that you are more or less coming out of the evolutionary materialism-dominated, secularist, subjectivist/relativist school of thought on morality, could you kindly provide warrant -- beyond, "might makes 'right' . . . " -- for why we should be bound by your views on "civil rights, justice, and economic equity." In short, this -- again - is a key concern on my part, as already cited from Plato's The Laws, Bk X in 217 above and never seriously responded to: _____________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Radical relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [Nietzsche's will to power and power based nihilistic amorality are not new, and are rooted in the imposition of evolutionary materialism], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [if justice and morality are just a matter of power games, then to the victors belong the spoils], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> _____________ Until I and others are satisfied that we see objective warrant for moral claims, we remain concerned that we may be being manipulated emotionally, in the context of an agenda that cannot stand on its own merits, one that as Tozzi pointed out, may have very serious consequences for liberty and justice for all. Not to mention, for the family foundation for any community worth living in. So, can you please explain and warrant your claims? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Second, for my generation, the sexual chaos is promiscuity, be it gay or straight. The philosophy which causes people to self-define as gay causes promiscuity. The fact that it is a self-definition is proven by the fact that people who have the same sexual desires but do not agree that they are good to act on self-define as ex-gay and so on. Choosing to "come out" and identify as gay and so on causes promiscuity because it is linked to a philosophy in which not acting on sexual desires is "living a lie." I.e. their own sexual desires define the truth and morality. This is combined with the fact that homosexuals have to rebel against natural law per se, unlike heterosexuals who may or may not. I.e. they have to pervert basic natural categories that we all know exist. Kirk and Madsen note that we all have a knowledge of the true version of things which is being perverted in perversions:
At first, the increasingly jaded gay man seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. Two major avenues diverge in this yellow wood, two nerves upon which to press: that of raunch, and that of aggresion. The pursuit of sexual happiness via raunch-fetishism, water sports and copraphilia, and so forth-seeks, essentially, to restore...thrills by restoring the 'dirty,' hence forbidden...a new barrier of 'resistance' to overcome. Unfortunately, this, as with all attempts to sustain the furor sexualis of youth by sheer intensification of some peripheral aspect of the experience, is doomed to failure: mere amplification of 'dirtiness' results, finally, in mere wallowing in filth... (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :304)
Indeed, one of the thoughts expressed more than once in this discussion, is that gays are immoral because they are promiscuous and experience a much higher rate of STDs. Unlike heterosexuals who may or may not do the same thing homosexuals begin by violating natural law, therefore many assume that violating it more will make them happier or happy again. This is why all sexual disorientations are linked together. Notice how the words sanity and sanitation are linked and are vital when it comes to civilization. So, now when gays agree with you that a promiscuous lifestyle is unfulfilling and dangerous and want to form stable, monogamous relationships, you’ll deny them that to. That's victimization propaganda, no one is being denied anything. But if you're successful you're going to deny children their fathers or mothers, more boys of lesbians will resent their masculine mothers and so on. More daughters will grow up with their third "dad" due to their father's promiscuity and vain "pursuit of happiness" as the be all, end all in his life due to his gay philosophy. More young men will begin to struggle with what it is to be a man, the virile roots of virtue will be done away with and more will die.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Shogun (253),
Isn’t the underlying theme of your side an atheist/humanist agenda with homosexuality as a subset of this subjective world view?
Yes, that agenda includes civil rights, justice, and economic equity.
Frankly, no one from your side attempted to show OBJECTIVELY why religious morality (Christian in this case) is wrong?
Who said it's wrong? Christianity is right and good on very many things. But it's not right and good on everything, and it's not the only show in town--or necessarily the best.LarTanner
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
markf #289) Thank you for your comments. I'll start by addressing your key concern: what if my argument is wrong? You write:
Intelligent though you are, you also capable of error. Suppose you have made mistake in your argument and actually homosexual sex is morally acceptable? Please think seriously about this possibility. After all there are many ardent Christians and even ID supporters on this blog who think who see nothing wrong with homosexual sex. If you have made an error, then you have accidentally done something rather appalling.
First, a Christian who approves of homosexual sex is an oxymoron. That doesn't show that homosexual sex is wrong, of course; one also needs to show that Christianity is right. But there can be no doubt that the historical Jesus, who was raised as a Jew, would have disapproved of homosexual sex. His views on sexual morality were even stricter than those of most of His Jewish contemporaries: not only did he condemn adultery, He also said that looking at a woman lustfully is tantamount to committing adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:27). He also condemned divorce (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18). Finally, He insisted that He hadn't come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-19), which would make no sense if He believed that its precepts prohibiting homosexual sex were immoral. I take it that nobody can legitimately call themselves a Christian unless they also claim to agree with all of Christ's views on morality - for if they disagree on even one point, they are relying on what they see as a higher authority than Christ, in order to decide what's right and wrong. Second, even though I believe that homosexual sex is immoral, I do not believe it should be illegal. I have nothing against two persons of the same sex living together, and getting legal recognition as "nearest of kin," allowing them to get visitation rights in hospitals. I'm also happy for two adults who have lived together for many years to be treated as partners for tax purposes, regardless of their sex. However, as a Christian, I'd still counsel homosexuals living together to live a celibate life. I certainly do not advocate any kind of name-calling, violence or hatred towards homosexuals. They are children of God, no matter whether their conduct is moral or immoral. More to follow later.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
It wasn’t in reference to a specific post, or any friend of mine. It’s a pretty common trend. Tchaikovsky, for example, was very tormented in his lifetime, arguably for this reason. No, not really:
Poznansky concludes that the composer "eventually came to see his sexual peculiarities as an insurmountable and even natural part of his personality ... without experiencing any serious psychological damage." cf. Wikipedia
And that undermines the image of the Gay Victim that you just invoked:
In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights, you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign will be more aggressive... The campaign should paint gay men and lesbians as superior-veritable pillars of society. ...this trick is so old it creaks. .... But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as 'queer' losers-shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child snatching misfits. The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping. From Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky... (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :187-188)
Good job, you invoked the Gay Victim and the Great Man at the same time. The evidence may be lacking, as usual, but at least you tried. As I recall propagandists often go a little far in their claims about famous people being gay, anyone from Lincoln to Alexander Hamilton has been called gay for the sake of propaganda. In any event, imagery of this sort, emotional conditioning and so on is not going to make having the State prescribe homosexuality as if it is the equal of heterosexuality any more reasonable or rational.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
---Quite ID: "I think we do ourselves no favors when we expect the state to enforce our views on sexual morality. Society is reprobate through and through." All societies are based on some moral code. My country, the United States, once believed in the natural moral law and was better for it, even though it did not always meet that standard. This same country officially abandoned the natural moral law in 1947 and has, since then, become progressively moral immoral. It now bases its laws on the whims of judges, the convenience of legislators, and, to some extent, popular opinion, all of which explain the progressive corruption. To be sure, the standards for the civil law should not be as demanding as the Biblical standards from which they are derived. In any case, what does any of this have to do with my comments about what does and does not constitute moral [not legal] sexual behavior. ---"Better to let the state reveal its corrupt nature so that the church can stand in marked contrast." The Church should influence the state with the right moral code so that the state will not be so corrupt. ---"(For the record, in case anybody cares, I think the sexual practices I listed earlier are permissible within marriage.)" My question persists. On what standard do you base that judgment? I have already explained the Church's interpretation of the natural moral law and provided the rationale [the unitive and procreative component of the sexual act cannot be separated]. If you disagree with that standard, please explain why. Provide your own standard, the rationale for that standard, and justify it from a Biblical/Natural law perspective.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
“I know some nice gay friends” I know it was meant to be disparaging, but it’s a much stronger force than long lists of articles on the evils of homosexuality. The same could be said of any human desire or behavior pattern. I know a nice fat person but that doesn't mean that the military should change its fitness requirements. It also doesn't mean that fat people are having their civil rights violated and so on. It's actually infantile link knowing a nice person with changing the structures of society based on your personal experience. It's also interesting to note how a special case has been made in the case of homosexuality thanks to effectiveness of propaganda on stupid people. Nothing against stupid people, I know a nice stupid person also. And they are another minority that is often discriminated against. I guess I’m wondering what people are trying to prevent? Disorder, chaos, destruction, etc., not to mention more stupidity. Gays are on TV as ‘normal’ people; Pride parades are so common to be largely “just another parade” Only in certain regions of the country, California is an example and they're bankrupt due to their decadence. ....and for every gay student bullied there are many who are just accepted by their peers. That's true. It's always been the case that fat students and effeminate students should not be bullied and so on. That doesn't mean that gender identity disorders and morbid obesity are desirable. Such is social change – people work alongside gays and find they aren’t fiends and monsters. It's interesting how no one here seems interested in defending homosexuality per se:
The Waging Peace media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as society's victims and inviting straights to be their protectors. For this to work, however, we must make it easier for responsive straights to assert and explain their new protective feelings. Few straight women, and fewer straight men, will be bold enough to defend homosexuality per se. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Thus, our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. (After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :187)
mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
#302 vj - if you are going to authorise any act that could lead to procreation subject to suitable scientific miracles than you must allow the possibility that sex between a lesbian couple might have a daughter through some bizarre feat of future medicine (a son is of course ruled out because neither has a Y chromosome). Just how far are you going to extend "could" and why on earth should it affect the morality of what can actually be achieved with present technology. Surely you must being to appreciate how arbitrary is the set of rules you are building about what is and is not moral?markf
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
QI: Please read Mr Tozzi's well-reasoned critique. The issue is not the decriminialisation of homosexual behaviour [which, de facto and de jure is largely so across our civilisation], but the police state backed homosexualisation of our civilisation and its foundational social institutions. That would turn a very large number of decent and upstanding people into "criminals" in the eyes of the law. The result would be horrific. And that is before we get to the social significance for communities of the gradual destruction of the family, probably across 20 - 40 years. (VJT you are right on that timeline issue.) The Yogyakarta agenda is hovering around in the UN and is being pushed behind the scenes. That which hovers behind the scenes today as an unmentionably radical suggestion, in 10 - 20 years is all over the headlines as the "mainstreaming" tactics work out on the ground. And I could regale you for hours with the techniques and tactics associated with that. Lets just say that the homosexualisation ofg marriage is far along, and the climate change agenda is completely mainstreamed, through it has had some troubles over the past year or so since the email scandals. Without its name being called, we are facing the Y-karta agenda right here as we look at constitutional renewal. (That backdrop is part of why I have pointed out some of the issues I highlighted above.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Thanks for raising the Yogyakarta document. I had never heard of this before. Do you think it is likely to affect laws? It hasn't yet in any way that I know. But as I hope I've made clear, I believe that laws should allow people to mess up their lives as much as they want. So to the extent the Yogyakarta principles would decriminalize homosexuality, I'm all for them. To the extent that they would restrict freedom of conscience for individuals or private organizations, I'm against them. But I haven't seen the document have any effects in the "real world" yet. In fact I'd never heard of it before reading your mention of it.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
San Antonio Rose A quick footnote. You asked KF what impact the legalization gay marriage would have on his marriage. I think the question is not what it impact it would have on his marriage, or on mine, but what it would have on our children's and our grand-children's future marriages. Would it weaken their sense that marriage is a life-long, monogamous partnership, "until death do us part?" Almost certainly, because of the brain-washing they'd get at school. Does that worry me? Yes.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
SAR: Please read carefully. I gave a very specific answer, one that involved my own and three other marriages -- never mind the terms you attempted to dictate were most loaded. Rather than continue to live in just one aspect of the sort of situation that Yogyakarta agenda would precipitate, I found it better to live with my family under the threat of an active explosive type volcano. Think about that, please. Also about that imposition of a police state, censorship and widespread violations of conscience for people in homes, schools, hospitals, churches and businesses as well as areas of residence will imply. Finally, I do not at all appreciate your twisting my remarks on a widespread breakdown of family due to sexual chaos that would be rendered irreversible by the homosexualisation of marriage, into "blame it on the gays." If you had taken the time to read my words more carefully, or to actually read the point made in the Manhattan Declaration, you will see that the precise point was that sexual chaos is a much broader problem, but the homosexualist agenda on marriage would push things across a tipping point; I gather that already your illegitimacy rate in the US may be 40% -- that is not a good number but it is also a sign of how widespread the problem is. [You will also kindly note that I do not normally use a term that relates only to an activist fraction, for all homosexuals. I suspect MOST actual homosexuals do not identify with the activist movement. "gay" is not a synonym for "homosexual."] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
San Antonio Rose Thank you for your question. Please give your great aunt Connie my warm congratulations on her marriage. Regarding your question: I believe it is certainly permissible for an elderly or otherwise infertile couple to get married, as they are doing nothing to render procreation impossible. Procreation is one of the great goods of marriage; to deliberately thwart it would be to rob marriage of its character. Rendering procreation impossible before getting married is wrong. It does not follow, however, that a married couple who are currently infertile should do everything they can do render procreation possible - i.e. seek out every fertility treatment they read about. There is such a thing as trying too hard. The point of my peculiar thought experiment was not to show that elderly people should have children, but that they could, hypothetically speaking. If their infertility were reversed, they'd still be the same people. That was what I meant when I wrote that age is not a natural impediment, in the strictest sense of "natural." If you use the word "natural" to mean "in the ordinary course of events," then of course aging is natural. It is something that happens to all of us. However, there is no reason in principle why it could not be delayed or partially reversed. Regarding the advisability of having a child in one's old age: I think it is unwise, but not immoral. The late actor Anthony Quinn (1915-2001) fathered a child at the age of 81. I don't think that was wrong. And I doubt whether the child he fathered would think it was wrong, either. If a super-surgeon of the future were able to offer a couple in their seventies the chance of conceiving again, I would advise them to say no - unless the surgeon could also give them an extra 30-year lease of life. And even then, they would have no obligation to take up the surgeon's offer.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 21

Leave a Reply