Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
tribune7:
mike, they are not being denied marriage benefits because of their sexual orientation. They are being denied the benefits because they can’t create children, and since they can’t create children in that particular union there is no need for the benefits, and, in fact, granting them would place an unfair burden on everyone else.
To which I respond with the usual example of two heterosexual people in their 60s who get married, get benefits, yet can't have children. The constitutional issues around gay marriage do not involve procreation. The State doesn't see this as an issue. It may be for religious marriages, as you've noted below; that's at the discretion of the specific religion and no one is forcing them to change that.
Believe it or not impotent men cannot get married in the Catholic church no matter how much they might happen to love a particular girl.
But a civil ceremony is perfectly fine, or another religion. Many divorced Catholic couples follow that path. If a Catholic couple feels it necessary to follow this rule and not get married, that is their choice, of course.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
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.Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Berceuse, you ought to stand by your friends when they need you. I'm not sure to which posts you are responding in your comments. The thread is getting pretty slow. I don't know how much longer people will be sticking with it.tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
mikev6-- However, that’s not what the gay marriage issue is about AFAIK. It’s about the idea that the State cannot refuse the rights that go with marriage to a particular group of people just because of sexual orientation and yet offer those rights to other groups. mike, they are not being denied marriage benefits because of their sexual orientation. They are being denied the benefits because they can't create children, and since they can't create children in that particular union there is no need for the benefits, and, in fact, granting them would place an unfair burden on everyone else. Believe it or not impotent men cannot get married in the Catholic church no matter how much they might happen to love a particular girl. Modern man and woman have gotten this idea that everything is about self-defined self-fulfillment. It's not.tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
You might say "a homosexual is a danger to himself anyway if he acts on it" but I think that's an unfair assessment. One can practice good judgment.Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
We've heard of the accounts from closet homosexuals who've suffered significant psychological torment because they believed their inclincations were immoral, unnatural, or "parasitic" (as one put it). When they come out to their family and friends, sometimes they're met with hostility...other times they are met with understanding and acceptance. In the former case, that kind of rejection can be depressing and dangerous. People commit suicide over this kind of thing. In the latter case, usually the individual is overcome with relief, and leads a much happier life. Now, since we're on the subject, which scenario do you think is more damaging? We say that the long-established "yuck" factor shouldn't be ignored, and I think that's a valid point. But when some homosexuals become a danger to themselves in the face of censure, I don't think that should be ignored either.Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
In comment #94 you said the act of homosexuality was evil. Have you changed your mind? No. I was responding to your statement in #224 in which I thought you were agreeing that certain homosexual acts were wrong and comparing them to smoking and over-eating which we as a society should attempt to discourage. Yes, I think acts of willful self-destruction and self-degradation are evil but I'm OK with describing the acts as simply "wrong" to find common ground. With regard, however, to encouraging these acts or discouraging criticism of them, I'll have to stick with "evil" Now, re-reading post 224 I see you are saying "homosexuality" is not wrong -- which is a point about with which I might not be in disagreement if you are referring to unwilled thoughts or orientation -- OTOH, you seem to be saying you may find it acceptable to dissuade people from this behavior a la over-eating albeit I think it would be better compared to intravenous drug use. We may be talking past each other.tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
shogun:
“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. I guess I'm wondering what people are trying to prevent? I think you've used the phrase "introduce homosexuality to society". Gays are on TV as 'normal' people; Pride parades are so common to be largely "just another parade"; and for every gay student bullied there are many who are just accepted by their peers. Such is social change - people work alongside gays and find they aren't fiends and monsters. At what point were you expecting the "gay avalanche" to hit? It seems (to me) to have already happened to a significant degree. And yet, heterosexual people are still getting married. I know we've seen articles about the dangers of homosexuality, and some are probably legit. Do we have anything showing a clear causal link between homosexuality and family damage? (There's been a lot of links so my apologies if I've missed these.)mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Please, think again before you help further the damage to a gravely — I think mortally — wounded civilisation.
I would agree that civilisation is gravely wounded. I just don't think that homosexuality is a cause.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
kairosfocus Would you agree with me that the reason why religious rules are objectively right is because they conform to the true human nature better than the atheist/relativist/humanist view? For example, religion promotes the traditional heterosexual marriage which perfectly conforms with the human nature. Any other form of sexuality is therefore an act of perversion that is parasitic to human nature, such as homosexuality. This is why the gay activists tried to prove that homosexuality is natural in order to reconcile it with human nature, but they ended up promoting a myth that many ignorant people bought. Interestingly enough, the fact that the "yuck" factor has been historically a universal look at homosexuality proves that it is a perfectly natural reaction, unless the opposition would have us believe that the vast majority of humanity had been intolerant bigots.Shogun
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
markf # 252
If you believe that something is wrong because your book of rules says so -I cannot prove that wrong. All I can do is * Point out that there are lots other books of rules out there and somehow we have to live together. * Point to consequences of your book of rules which seem absurd or unacceptable e.g. if your book of rules says that all sex must be related to procreation then why is sex after the menopause OK?
But the key problem here is: on what basis do you claim that religion's opinion regarding an issue (ie homosexuality) is false? Where did you get that authority? The only way to do it is to objectively prove that homosexuality is beneficial or harmless to the society in the long term. Your objection, however, is totally subjective and emotional, and hence it is flawed. My side at least attempted to objectively show that homosexuality is harmful due to several social/psychological/medical problems associated to it. And your best apology towards homosexuality seems to be "I know some nice gay friends", added to that a confusion of the human nature and subjective contempt towards religion. You are objecting to religious rules that promote self-control of desires for the well being of humanity, and your basis seems to be the rather humanist view: "do as thou wilt".Shogun
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
ME6; this is not a matter of "IF I might have offended . . . " And, the damage to society from homosexualist ideology has been objecively shown above, just dismissed by those who find that an inconvenient truth. Please, think again before you help further the damage to a gravely -- I think mortally -- wounded civilisation. G'night. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Before we go assuming what "sides" people belong to, I want to clarify: I'm not an evolutionist I'm not an athiest I'm not a materialistBerceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Onlookers: MF,252 : I would imagine that most of the “atheis/humanists” in this discussion believe that ethics is at core subjective, certainly I do Thus we see confirmed the point that evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral and radically relativist. So, might makes right to such, however cleverly disguised. When it ocnmes o "books of rules," this is a strawman, the core principles of morality are a consensus, and that obtains across religions and civilizations. As C S Lewis long ago pointed out, there are no cultures that celebrate cowardice in battle, or the cheating, unfairness to or murder of those in the in-group. Indeed, the evidence of the fact that quarrelling is a universal phenomenon -- look above and see evident materialists trying to show us wrong -- shows that we are governed by a moral law, that is binding. That strongly points tot he objectivity of morality and to the objectivity of a Moral, Good Lawgiver. One who is the foundational IS of the cosmos who, per his inherently good character, properly grounds OUGHT. Those who reject this conclusion, are forced into one species or another of subjectivism on morality; if they are consistent in their thinking. AKA, might makes "right." G'night GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
MEV6, you owe me and others an apology.
If I have misunderstood your meaning and thought, I certainly am more than willing to apologize and I'm sorry - such was certainly not my intention. Given the number of discussions of damage to society from homosexuality, it's not unreasonable to discuss the topic of rights and penalties, but I will keep my examples more reasonable.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
PS: Western civ is something like 1 or 1 1/2 billions out of 6 1/2. While homosexualisdation of marriage may be popular among the university- and mainstream [so-called] media indoctrinated, it is probably not even a majority opinion among that 1 1/2 billions. And even if it were, the 51% would not transform what is objectively disordered and socially suicidal into what would be right or a right.kairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Shogun "Frankly, no one from your side attempted to show OBJECTIVELY why religious morality (Christian in this case) is wrong?" I would imagine that most of the "atheis/humanists" in this discussion believe that ethics is at core subjective, certainly I do. Therefore we cannot objectively show that religious morality is wrong and you cannot objectively show it is right. If you believe that something is wrong because your book of rules says so -I cannot prove that wrong. All I can do is * Point out that there are lots other books of rules out there and somehow we have to live together. * Point to consequences of your book of rules which seem absurd or unacceptable e.g. if your book of rules says that all sex must be related to procreation then why is sex after the menopause OK?markf
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Re ME6: Bare assertion, without foundation. In particular, we see here 1984 style word twisting. Marriage exists, historically and as a general consensus of humanity, as a term to describe a stable union between the complementary sexes -- which is biologically objective -- in which in the normal course children are born, nurtured and raised, perpetuating society with future stable adults. Any sane community has a compelling interest in the fostering of such relationships, and in refusing to confuse what should be plain. And, to support such a common-sense, natural law [law of human nature as male and female here, and as having children that require 10+ years to be sufficiently mature to fend for themselves] view is not to condone hate or violence to those who may wish to adopt other patterns of behaviour. But, for the sake of survival of the community, we must not allow confusion or undermining of what is vital. See why I think our civilisation is increasingly suicidal? GEMkairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Lartanner #236
The underlying theme of this entire discussion is the declining authority and political power of religious institutions in America.
Isn't the underlying theme of your side an atheist/humanist agenda with homosexuality as a subset of this subjective world view? Frankly, no one from your side attempted to show OBJECTIVELY why religious morality (Christian in this case) is wrong? A subjective contempt towards Christianity is not an objective argument against it, just like how your emotional sentiment towards homosexuality is not an objective ground to legalize it.Shogun
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
MF: Murder is inherently irrational. Being calculated is not the same as being rational. To see why, just turn the matter around: one who willingly invites his own murder is plainly deeply irrational, and so the same holds when he is the intended perpetrator, not the victim. (We don't even need to move to full universalisation to see that. And BTW, this is not hypothetical. I know a psychologist who had a patient who came to him when he had tried to hire a gun-man to kill himself. The gun-man (a paid murderer coming from a street culture that has the breakdown I discussed above) said: you are sick, and need to go to psychologist X.) And, this is beginning to look like a reductio ad absurdum as the attempt to deflect the import of the amorality of evolutionary materialism is ever more on display. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
"If I take a list of 200 different sex acts, show me how I decide which ones are “moral” and which ones aren’t." I would also like to see this answered, especially in the context of the irrationality argument stated earlier. How are we defining the boundaries for rational action when considering sexual behavior? If for example, sex is considered for solely its practical, reproductive purpose, just about anything not involving semen being deposited into a vagina is "irrational", and therefore "immoral."Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
tribune@237:
Mike, I have not read every post. If we are talking about a “right” to marriage, it doesn’t exist.
I fully agree - no one has a 'right' to marry. However, that's not what the gay marriage issue is about AFAIK. It's about the idea that the State cannot refuse the rights that go with marriage to a particular group of people just because of sexual orientation and yet offer those rights to other groups. There are still restrictions involved (age, consent, etc.). The same reason that inter-racial marriage laws were overturned.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
MEV6: Plainly, your definition of a "right" is deeply suspect. here is rthe only truly defensible definition of a right thst doesd not end up in some species or another of might makes right:
A right is a binding moral claim we may make on others, based on our inherent dignity and purpose as human beings.
So, I have a right to my life, the foundation of fulfilling my purpose. And many other things. But, I have no binding moral claim on others that they must marry me. Marriage is a freedom, not a right. To compound the error by claiming a right to indulge in self- and socially destructive destructive sexual conduct, is even more of an error. Worse, it plainly trammels here on not only my right to my conscience and to a mind of my own that I may express, but the right to my reputation, for you have here slandered me. Your accusation that I disrespect rights is out of order, and should be apologised for. (Onlookers, see how the issue of homosexualist activism and trammelling on freedom of conscience and expression for those who see something seriously wrong with homosexual behaviours, is very very directly relevant? I am all but called a hateful, oppressive person above, when I have expressed in a fair and civil way, a principled moral objection.) MEV6, you owe me and others an apology. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
#232 Lamont I left your argument off my little list because it seemed so patently absurd I thought I must have misunderstood it. Here are three key sentences from your earlier comment and my responses. 1) "Any time a person who has the capacity to act rationally chooses to act irrationally, the act is immoral." Really. So, e.g. if someone who carries the photograph of their dead loved one in their pocket in the hope that might bring them back to life this is immoral? "Sodomy is the kind of act that cannot be rationally chosen. " Why not? Two people want to do it. It does not harm to anyone. What is irrational about that? "Why do people do these things anyway? It is simple to satisfy some feeling or desire they have rather than exercise the self-control that reason calls for" Sadly some people commit murder in very controlled and calculated fashion. Are these murders OK?markf
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Re: 238 Well you'll have to expand on what you mean if you want me to agree. Saying it's destructive does not make it so.Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
#236 The nice thing about places like Uncommon Descent in a web-enabled world, is that a vastly larger number of people are becoming exposed to just how deeply people (intelligent ones) are willing to argue in favor of ignorance. When forced out on a rhetorical limb by the failures of one's argument, one then asks "who decides what makes a legitimate family?" What an insufferably stupid question to ask (made even more stupid by the strategically-placed adjective "legitimate"). One can only wonder if they have ever taken off their cloths in the presence of a person of the opposite sex, or perhaps caught an re-run episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. But then again, what could be expected of someone whose came here to enlighten onlookers with circularity. As a person who thinks that words matter, he informs that the ultimate reality is that there are no ultimate realities. What else could be said?Upright BiPed
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
ME6: First, please note that I have spoken to ONE way we can spot immoral behaviours, proposals and attitudes. (There are many other ways to validly recognise and warrant moral principles, starting with being on the receiving end of abusive conduct. Moral principles of fairness etc, typically serve to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong and immoral, i.e. just the opposite of "might makes right." Similarly, one can reflect on the evident purpose of something, and the good end it fulfills; that which frustrates such is evil, i.e. the privation of good -- cf. the power of choice that empowers us to love and shows how we are under moral government, but which can be perverted into hate, selfishness or callous indifference. Yet another, is to simply be in good communion with God, and to learn from him, through the voice of an unsullied and well-instructed conscience; a way that is simply not open to those whose consciences have become benumbed by the habits and teachings of vice and error. Hence, the importance of the cultivation of virtue. And so on . . .) Second to this, in fact, widespread sexual immorality is precisely responsible for much of the chaos we are seeing. It is now inviting the destruction of marriage as an institution, and of the families built on stable marriages. If you don't know what that implies for a community, think street gang culture writ large; coalescing around substituting the peer group on the street for the missing family -- and without any serious police force to protect the weak. There are several all too real world examples of where that points, and it ain't pretty. That is, we see here precisely the destructive implications of the behaviour as it spreads across the community that the CI highlights as a test of immorality. (This is opposite to the radical relativism of the dictatorship of 51%. So far are we gone as a civilisation that this is hard to see, through the underlying pernicious effects of the amorality of evolutionary materialism.) The declarants in fact highlighted the destructive trend, and have called for repentance and reformation, starting with the churches. And that is what we need to do -- but I am fully prepared to bet that our civilisation as a whole (as opposed to remnants and communities of refuge) will not do this. That is, my diagnosis is that he disease is now mortal. My long-term bet is: China wins, should the good Lord tarry that long. And, "that long" is 30 - 50 years. Meanwhile, we are in for a wild, bloody ride with internal problems and the rising violent Islamist challenge [NOT to be equated to all or even most Muslims, but 100 mn+ is a lot more than the total number of real Nazis and Communists in the last, late and unlamented Century . . .] which in significant part is responding to the signs of decadence and decay. A China, BTW, which is rapidly moving towards the critical 20 - 30% Christian population that causes a civilisational tipping point. Prester John II. GEM of TKI PS: Mynym, well put.Lamont, you also have a serious point, especially when rationality is understood as recognising the value of personhood and -- in this context -- the complementary design of our bodies. if sodomy were to become the universal form of sexual behaviour, the race would perish.kairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
mynym@233:
As I recall the only basis for a sexual ethic that you’ve admitted to is consent. Isn’t that arbitrary as well?
Sure it is. But it's not completely arbitrary. We would all agree that a 5 year old can't consent to sex. A person two weeks shy of 18 - a bit murkier. There are of course individuals older than 18 who can't reasonably consent either. But there has to be a dividing line somewhere. On the other hand, how do you determine which sexual activity is moral or not? You keep mentioning "natural law", but I see no way of going from that (whatever "natural law" means in this case) to a specific activity. If I take a list of 200 different sex acts, show me how I decide which ones are "moral" and which ones aren't.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Tribune7 "Mark, saying something is wrong is not the same as saying something is evil. What is evil, however, is being unwilling to say that something that is wrong is wrong." In comment #94 you said the act of homosexuality was evil. Have you changed your mind?markf
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
...and when that wrong has potential to do severe damage to people and communities, there is a compelling community interest to regulate through law or custom or both.
OK, so you feel that the danger of homosexuality is enough to overturn basic rights and freedoms for individuals. What do you think would be an appropriate restriction? Criminal charges for sodomy? House arrest? National Gay registry? What about me? You've equated homosexuality to rape. If I was to assist one person to rape another, I would be charged with a crime. If I support equal rights for homosexuals, am I not also guilty of assisting this "severe damage to people and communities"? Will you also support limiting my rights and freedoms as well? What do I get - a fine? Jail time?mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13 14 21

Leave a Reply