Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

_{Vincent Torley

December 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Berceuse tribune7, by “objectively destructive”, what are you referring to? Spiritual jeopardy (provided that it’s a sin)?. No. I was referring to physical matters. If we can't agree on the physical reality bringing the spiritual into it is an exercise in futility.tribune7_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Mikv6 -- There is nothing wrong with warning people about potential dangers of actions. However, many of the comments go far beyond handing out flyers and a few PSA’s. The question is whether these dangers, the supposed evils of homosexuality, and the perceived danger to society as a whole justify violating the civil rights of people who engage in certain sexual acts. Mike, I have not read every post. If we are talking about a "right" to marriage, it doesn't exist. You may not marry your sister. You man not marry a child. Saying you have a right to marry is like saying you have a right to drive. You don't. You even need to apply for a marriage license generally. There is also the realty that gay marriage will give social sanction to this particular sex act which is very, very bad. This will obviously make laughable any public health warnings. Then there is the matter of "love." Ironically, this debate is not about church marriage. If for instance, two persons of the same sex wanted to pay some person to utter a blessing over their union, I don't think any poster has advocated it be illegal. The issue, of course, is civil marriage and that is an institution that is predicated on the expectation of the absence of holy love in sexual unions. Doubt me and I'll just point to the divorce courts, which are too crowded as is. There are financial benefits to marriage but these are based on the idea that a spouse stays home arguably doing the hardest and most important work while a spouse goes outside to acquire the material resources. Most people don't think such a thing is unfair. OTOH, if two persons should both work without an expectation that children are soon going to be in the picture such an arrangement starts seeming a lot less fair. Such a thing will always be the case in matters involving two men, and, yes, I don't think homosexual men should be allowed to adopt except in the rarest of circumstances. For me, not allowing homosexual men to marry is not about being mean or violating civil rights but simple common sense.tribune7_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

So, it is high time that we all took a sober look at what is happening with our common civilisation and its foundational institution, the family.
Which makes a good argument for looking critically at the Manhattan Declaration. Our common civilization is more than either yours or mine. Who decides when human life begins or ends? On what grounds? With what stipulations and exceptions? While the MD presents a legitimate view held by many, it is not the only legitimate view and, I would argue, it doesn't provide the most helpful perspective on the issues it addresses. Same with "the family." Who decides what makes a normal or legitimate family? Who decides what relationship gets the word "marriage" attached to it? Does the pope? A rabbi? A medieval philosopher? A politician? The "people"? The underlying theme of this entire discussion is the declining authority and political power of religious institutions in America. The MD is speaking to a frightened social and political base, assuring them through omission that problem couldn't be with corporate greed, rampant capitalism, and outdated political and economic models. No, they say, the problem is "us."LarTanner_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Markf -- I cannot see how this is an argument for homosexuality being wrong. It is at most an argument for trying to dissuade people from homosexual practice (given it is destructive). You could say as much for smoking or over-eating. It doesn’t mean either is evil. 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. For instance, if we should teach in our schools that those who warn of the dangers of cigarette smoking are narrow-minded intolerant bigots, well that would be evil.tribune7_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

mynym at 234: so, Apple - a private company - deciding to not offer a Manhattan Declaration app. in their commercial product line-up is censorship and a "proto-Nazi attack on civilization?" I don't know - I call it free speech in a free market.molch_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

"...when a man puts the part of himself which represents the generation of life into the cavity of decay and expulsion" hmmm, except that that part of himself that represents the generation of life is also a rod of decay and explusion - given that in human males, it is the lower part of the urinary tract.molch_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

And then do what [about the decline of civilization], exactly? To begin with one could support something like the Manhattan declaration against the censorship, propaganda and proto-Nazi tendencies typical to those who attack civilization. People could do things like that regardless of whatever sexual desires they happen to have or not have at any given time. After all, we're all just people and losing sight of that fact based on the sort of classification mania typical to psychologists would be utterly absurd. They invented the homophile and then let "them" out of the asylum. "Psychology is as useless as directions for using poison." --Karl Krausmynym_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Pol Pot thought it was wrong and unnatural for people to go to universities and live in cities. Clearly this causes the breakdown of the bonds of camaraderie that exist amongst a community living in the forest, and also destroys the innate agrarian nature of human beings. Hitler thought Jews were unnatural and sub-human. His solution was to try and exterminate them. But a more humane way would be to make them have "treatment" so they stopped choosing to believe in Judaism. A hundred years ago most people thought it was unnatural for black people to have human rights. Just look at them, clearly they are different, and in the eyes of many whites, they clearly aroused revulsion. It's just natural that the races should live separately, and that black people perform the mundane tasks in society. None of these viewpoints are any different to mynymn's and other's belief that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. It's a completely self-centered and personal values based judgment no matter how you try and dress it up.zeroseven_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

...the decision that sexual act A is immoral and sexual act B is fine is totally arbitrary. As I recall the only basis for a sexual ethic that you've admitted to is consent. Isn't that arbitrary as well? Christians can refer to the Bible for guidance on anal sex (although it doesn’t seem 100% clear), but most of human creativity in this area is not mentioned in the Bible or any other religious text... That is merely an inversion of legalism. Respecting basic natural categories is written all over the spirit of the law. ...so you’re reflecting personal taste, not immorality. Isn't your morality summed up by consent and nothing else? That's all that I can gather from what you've said. In other words, "Do what thou will." as the Wiccans say. If there is something more to your sexual ethic than that then feel free to explain.mynym_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Markf, The first principle of morality is that we should do good and avoid what is evil. A second principle is that we are rational beings and ought to act rationally. In other words, it is good to be rational and evil to be irrational. As I explained above, #119, sodomy is irrational and therefore immoral. There is no rational justification for such an act. People often act on impulses, feelings, and desires in an irrational manner. When they do, what they do is immoral. If you reject this, then you are rejecting morality itself. If you continue to use the word ‘morality’ anyway, then it is clear that you would rather play word games rather than get at the truth of the matter.Lamont_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

The question is whether these dangers, the supposed evils of homosexuality, and the perceived danger to society as a whole justify violating the civil rights of people who engage in certain sexual acts. No one's civil rights are being violated by those who support civilization based on reason and natural law. Indeed, the history of America shows that a philosophy of natural law leads toward progress in respecting civil rights, not their violation. But as far as the notion of violating rights based on sexual desires goes, are the rights of bisexuals violated only when they feel like being homosexual? I'm curious as to the thought processes of someone who actually believes that there is an immutable minority called homosexuals who have a different set of rights than everyone else as a result of their sexual desires. If men who want to have sex with more than one woman defined as "promiscuous people" would that be another minority whose civil rights were being violated by current marriage law? After all, they'd be born that way and so on. The truth is that if same sex marriage is prescribed it will apply to all people equally. It will not apply to subjective classifications that ignorant people treat as an objective reality equivalent to the empirical reality of being male or female. Ironically the same people who want to treat subjective and situational sexual desires or a self-definition like "gay" as an objective biological reality also tend to want to act as if biology is a subjective choice. It isn't.mynym_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
That is, immoral acts can often be identified by how they parasite off the fact that they are not the general pattern of behaviour.
Hard to support this one. The general feeling is that the immoral is above mere percentages. Most of the population has sex before marriage - does that make it suddenly moral? Does an act go from immoral to moral when you hit 50%? The whole tenor of this thread is that "society is in moral decay and gays are contributing to it" - if most of the population is displaying "moral decay" then surely that makes it moral under this guide.
So, it is high time that we all took a sober look at what is happening with our common civilisation and its foundational institution, the family.
And then do what, exactly?mikev6_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

PS: One cannot have a right to a wrong. You can have the right to be free to make a decision to act one way or another, but no-one owes you the duty to support you in the wrong, 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. Sexual anarchy is precisely a classic such area, and it is why we have law on rape, incest, child exploitation, adultery, and on the institution of marriage and family. Willy-nilly asserting or manufacturing claimed "rights" under colour of law, does not change the underlying realities, but it may institutionalise destructive conduct and make it doubly hard to correct such.kairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: The above underscores why we need to hear the point being made in the Manhattan Declaration, and hear it objectively. That male and female are innately complementary is self-evident, starting with the basic biology of human reproduction and the social-psychology of child nurture. Indeed, here is Am H Dict:
com·ple·men·tar·i·ty (kmpl-mn-tr-t) n. The state or quality of being complementary: "This is where the complementarity of the masculine and the feminine so acutely emerges. They are the necessary poles of a dialectic process" (Therese Namenek).
Notice the typical example given -- I did not add it, just check! Next, as a trained philosopher, MF knows full well that one (but not he only) key test for the moral worth of a belief, proposal or behaviour is the consequences it has when -- empirically or as a thought experiment -- spread across the community. For instance, if lying were the rule rather than the exception, communication, trust and community would utterly break down. The same would hold for stealing etc. That is, immoral acts can often be identified by how they parasite off the fact that they are not the general pattern of behaviour. As a logically equivalent form, they can be identified from whether they show the due respect to persons, or use them for selfish ends. (This last illustrates a connexion to the classic golden rule; whether or not there is a willingness to acknowledge that.) Above, enough was shown to highlight that amorality is immoral and socially destructive, and yes this means that evolutionary materialism is immoral. Similarly, the excerpts of the Manhattan Declaration were more than enough to identify the moral problems of homosexual conduct and its proposed legal establishment. Refusal to acknowledge unwelcome -- but objectively warranted -- facts and truth does not constitute good reason to dismiss them. And, I can assure you, that when you are going to try to lock people out of doing charitable works, and drive them out of business on profound matters of conscience, or in effect censor churches where people go to deal with the most profound reality of all, God; you are becoming a tyrant or a supporter of tyranny. (And, kindly note: we make a sharp distinction here between homosexualist ideologues pushing a questionable agenda and oredinary people who have or may struggle with same-sex attractions and associated habituating behaviours, for whatever reasons. Nor will it help us to address this issue to try the turnabout accusation of "you're a hypocrite" tactics. [Observe how the declarants are very careful to confess the sins of the church as institution and the need for repentance at institutional and popular levels.] Indeed, we should particularly note that they -- correctly -- view that the bigger problem is the sexual anarchy that increasingly dominates our civilisation and is reflected in things like divorce and illegitimacy rates; noting that one key problem with homosexualism is that if its legal agenda triumphs, it will lock out the path back to sexual and family sanity. If we do not address the range of issues, we are going to pay a terrible price, as a global community.) So, it is high time that we all took a sober look at what is happening with our common civilisation and its foundational institution, the family. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

and we're on again... tribune7@223: There is nothing wrong with warning people about potential dangers of actions. However, many of the comments go far beyond handing out flyers and a few PSA's. The question is whether these dangers, the supposed evils of homosexuality, and the perceived danger to society as a whole justify violating the civil rights of people who engage in certain sexual acts. I have difficulty with this. I wouldn't want the State forcing me into a treatment program or curtailing my rights because of something my wife and I do in our own bedroom, so I don't advocate that for anyone else. And the decision that sexual act A is immoral and sexual act B is fine is totally arbitrary. Christians can refer to the Bible for guidance on anal sex (although it doesn't seem 100% clear), but most of human creativity in this area is not mentioned in the Bible or any other religious text, so you're reflecting personal taste, not immorality. Now, as I've said before, there's nothing to stop anyone from saying homosexuality is immoral, and I support that right even if I disagree with it. However, if you proceed further and actually take actions that interfere with the rights of others, that's where I differ.mikev6_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

To me it is just another example of obscuring the real reasons with obscure abstract language. I suspect that by real reasons you mean the feelings of revulsion that many people feel toward homosexuality, religious reasons or whatever else. But the evidence is clear that the real reasons cross culture and subjective feelings as a result of basic biosocial realities. There are people who do not have feelings of revulsion at homosexuality or who have such sexual themselves who admit to reality anyway. And there are people from all different sorts of religions who similarly admit to reality. And so on. It's not a matter of obscure, abstract language in the least. That's way everyone understands it no matter what their sexual desires happen to be. The sexes are complementary in many ways, beginning with the fact that all of our lives have their origins in the undeniable fact of their complementarity. On the other hand, things are often equally as obvious:
What does it mean, I asked him, when a man puts the part of himself which represents the generation of life into the cavity of decay and expulsion?Seeing the answer all too well, he refused to reply. Permit me to spell it out. It means 'Life, be swallowed up by death.' --J. Budziszewski, The Revenge of Conscience
mynym_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

tribune7, by "objectively destructive", what are you referring to? Spiritual jeopardy (provided that it's a sin)?Berceuse_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

#222 I am afraid I have no idea what the "innate complementarity of the sexes" means. To me it is just another example of obscuring the real reasons with obscure abstract language. #223 I cannot see how this is an argument for homosexuality being wrong. It is at most an argument for trying to dissuade people from homosexual practice (given it is destructive). You could say as much for smoking or over-eating. It doesn't mean either is evil.markf_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Markf-- I then scanned for arguments that homosexual practice was wrong in itself. These appeared to fall into three types: How about the one where you are supposed to love your neighbor which means trying to discourage them -- much less actively giving license to -- objectively destructive behavior?tribune7_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

how long gay couples stay together, and whether gay people are more promiscous on average. This is merely showing that even according to the "It's okay to do whatever you can get away with doing without causing harm." standard it's still wrong. In other words, it shouldn't be promoted by the State as something desirable on a par with heterosexuality. You're shifting to a different standard here: None of this seems relevant to the fundamental question: Is it wrong to engage in homosexual practice? It is wrong to deny the innate complementarity of the sexes. The interesting thing about the LGBT community, such as it is, is that it includes the notion that the natural categories of male and female can be transcended. So homosexuality supposedly cannot be chosen, yet the very thing that defines male and female (and therefore homosexuality) supposedly can be chosen. The only thing that seems to unify the "minority," such as it is, is a willful denial of and rebellion against the innate complementarity of the sexes.mynym_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

On liberty of conscience under God: ______________ >> RELIGIOUS LIBERTY The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1 Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21 The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: "Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God" (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason. Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well. It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti- discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here. In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one's own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny. As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it. Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King's willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring. Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's. Is this a declaration with which you agree, and that you would like to support with your signature? If so, please click the button below. By doing so, you’ll be joining the hundreds of thousands of others who believe as you do about taking a stand for their faith. >> ______________ So, now, let the objectors answer on the merits, not he red herrings, the strawman caricatures and the ad hominem attacks. __________ F/N: for those who would deride and dismiss the Christian faith as ill-founded and dismissible on its core claim, the gospel, I suggest a look here, here and here as a start.kairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Regarding marriage: ___________________ >>MARRIAGE The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God's creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as "holy matrimony" to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem. Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out- of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce. We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same. To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make. The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents' marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant. 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 have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. 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. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God's patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it. We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation. We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being "married." It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential. No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is. 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. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage. >> _____________________ This is well-thought-through, and very carefully balanced indeed. those who object say more about themselves than about this declaration . . . Now on the freedom of conscience issue . . .kairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Opening salvo -- this is a strong echo of the 1934 Barmen Declaration in the teeth of the rise of Fascist political messianism: ______________ >>DECLARATION We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions. Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) 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; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image. We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. >> ______________ Ironic, isn't it that a declaration that focuses on freedom of conscience and expression should be met by . . . CENSORSHIP based on slander by activists for a fashionable agenda?kairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

PS: It is worth the while to put up aspects of he declaration here, e.g. the title and preamble, which make it utterly plain that what is now at stake is freedom of conscience and of virtue; without which no society can survive: ______________ >>MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009 PREAMBLE Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering. While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord. After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines. In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class. This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination. Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.>> _____________ Next, some of the substance . . .kairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Pardon a note. I have been busy elsewhere but have been monitoring key threads, and notice that the issue in this thread points to the social/moral implications of evolutionary materialism and its inherent amorality; as it begins to dominate governance in our civilisation. For, this thread -- sadly, but tellingly -- is highly revealing of the underlying inescapable amorality and radical relativism of evolutionary materialism, what it implies for a society where the intellectual and governance culture are increasingly dominated by that force, and the related impact of the Alinski "Rules for Radicals" rhetorical pattern of personalising issues and polarising the public. (Aka "jamming"-out those who differ from the agenda being pushed, using the fallacious and utterly immoral trifecta rhetorical stratagem: red herring distractors, led away to strawman caricatures that are laced with personal attacks, and then setting the strawman alight with incendiary rhetoric). VJT is quite right: there is an agenda and case in point of censorship -- yes, inappropriate suppression of opinions that cut across the wishes of the powerful -- accompanied by the hijacking of "rights" language, and the slandering of the concerns expressed in the Manhattan Declaration; concerns that plainly were very carefully balanced indeed and reflect the longstanding position of theistic thought that homosexual behaviour is profoundly disordered -- "against nature," self- and socially destructive, thus immoral. (Cf petition to Mr Jobs of Apple.) Now, just above at 216, MF tries to focus the issue:
the fundamental question: Is it wrong to engage in homosexual practice? If it is not wrong then surely it is absolutely appalling to deny those gay couples who are not promiscuous and do stay together and do not intend to bring up children (and there are many such couples) the dignity of recognising their relationship and making a public committment to each other. We would never dream of denying any other minority group the option of marriage because that group as a whole were more promiscuous and had less stable relationships than average.
Now I am fully aware of MF's habitual rhetorical tactic of ignoring what he cannot cogently address, but the basic gap in reasoning here is the one long since highlighted by Plato in his The Laws, Book X, c. 360 BC, which I have frequently highlighted at UD: ________________ >> 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. >> ________________ Notice, how Plato draws out that the onward tactic of those caught up in amorality is to reduce right and wrong to a political power contest, and then to proceed on a path that destabilises society as a whole. Which of course is the precise point of the Kantian Categorical imperative: behaviour that is socially destructive if generalised is inherently immoral. So, once the amoral ethical implications of evolutionary materialism and its associated radical relativism and will-to power nihilistic ethics are worked out and spread across a culture [which then begins to forget its traditional restrains on potentially destructive behaviour, e.g. marriage and committed family life backed up by a community that cherishes and protects family and children through law, education and custom], such stand revealed as utterly immoral. The case of the homosexualist lobby's decades-long (and increasingly "successful") campaign to destabilise marriage and family, not to mention core personal identity -- even our names reflect our sexual identity -- is simply a particular case in the wider point. So is the related campaign to "pornographise" sexual relationships, also twisting courtship into the notorious seduction-score, notches on the belt game. (e.g. Ever wondered why there is so much "free" [pseudo-]"amateur" porn on the Internet, and why it so consistently seeks to glamourise and desensitise us to the most bizarre, abusive and destructive sexual misconduct? Why search engine providers like Google, who have given into Chinese censorship, play the "free speech rights" game in defense of such porn -- apparently including ? And more?) In short, we are living in a civilisation that is in moral spin-out driven by a rising tidal wave of amorality, and is rapidly sliding towards the cliff of the collapse of family stability. (And on that, I cannot but decry the rising or horrendous rates of illegitimacy [starting with my home region] and the similarly rising or appalling rates of divorce . . . that too, is a dangerous weapon against our future.) We need to think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

I have been away for a couple of days and apologise if I am repeating stuff that has been said elsewhere. There are over 200 hundred comments and some of them of several thousand words. As far as I can see there is quite a lot of debate on the success of gay couples as parents, how long gay couples stay together, and whether gay people are more promiscous on average. None of this seems relevant to the fundamental question: Is it wrong to engage in homosexual practice? If it is not wrong then surely it is absolutely appalling to deny those gay couples who are not promiscuous and do stay together and do not intend to bring up children (and there are many such couples) the dignity of recognising their relationship and making a public committment to each other. We would never dream of denying any other minority group the option of marriage because that group as a whole were more promiscuous and had less stable relationships than average. I then scanned for arguments that homosexual practice was wrong in itself. These appeared to fall into three types: * The Christian religion forbids it. Well those of us who are not Christians clearly have a problem here. And I suggest it is a very poor idea for society to base its moral norms on any one religions precepts. * It is self-evidently evil (e.g. StephenB #151). Many, many people do not find it self-evidently evil. So it is hardly a proof. * The John Finnis paper that vj first references in #66. This paper was clearly written from the assumption that homosexuality was wrong and uses obscure, abstract language to try and find a justification (but actually hides the fact there is no justification). In the end it rests on the premise that sexual acts that could potentially lead to children in some context (which might be nothing to do with this couple) are OK while sexual acts that could not are evil. There is no real proof of this - just some flannel about actualising and giving expression to marriage - as though homosexual couples were necessarily not expressing their relationship. By this definition kissing between heterosexual couples is evil. It also leads to the bizarre conclusion that while conventional sex is OK because of its potential for procreation, it is also OK for a heterosexual couple who don't want children and take steps to avoid it i.e. deliberately avoid the justification.markf_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

vjtorley@212: I think a reasonable first analysis. Your first point is always something to be careful of but it applies to many researchers (all Discovery Institute Fellows, for example). Lack of randomness and sample bias are my personal issues in research. But then I come from an area where there is usually too much data rather than too little. Hmm - so both sides are potentially bad from my point of view. Each bit of research will have to be evaluated individually.mikev6_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

VJ.. nice work again, I think you already delivered your point long ago. But no matter how good your argument is, it is not enough to convince the opposition. This is not a debate about one issue (homosexuality), it is ultimately a conflict of opposing world views. The atheist/humanists here are arguing from their own subjective world view and their best arguments are emotional support for homosexuality. Not to mention their contempt to any subtle hint of religion. What is really troublesome is that the majority of the public still buy the myth that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and this was the grounds on which it was legalized in the first place. I wonder what would the public say if they receive the knowledge that they had been deceived about homosexuality through the desensitizing tactics of Kirk & Madsen. Why wouldn't the deceptive gay lobby groups have the courage to tell the public that there is actually no conclusive scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is natural?Shogun_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

VJ....nice job.Upright BiPed_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

mikev6 (#192) I'd like to respond to your challenge:
However, if anyone reading this can spot a similar example of quote-mining from the AAP, I’ll change my mind.
The example I’m going to cite from the AAP is not one of quote-mining as such, but one which instantiates three equally egregious argumentative vices: quoting from an authority with a known personal bias; quoting from a study whose methodology is known to be severely flawed; and omission of data which is inconvenient to one’s case. I’m referring to the recent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) by Drs. Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos, which was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Since the 1980s, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) has been following and reporting on a cohort of planned lesbian families with children conceived through donor insemination. The study may be cited as follows: Gartrell, N. and Bos, H. (2010). "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents," Pediatrics, Volume 126, Number 1, July 2010 p. 28-36. Available online at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/126/1/28 . The NLLFS study concludes: "Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment” (p. 28). The study received a very favorable write-up in Time magazine (June 7, 2010, Study: Children of lesbians may do better than their peers, by Alice Park). A critical review of this study by Dr. Albert Dean Byrd, PhD, MPA, MPH, is now available online, in an article entitled, New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence . The quotations below are all taken from Byrd's article. And now, here is the evidence that the NLLFS study, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, is guilty of intellectual dishonesty on three counts. Vice Number One – Personal Bias:
Gartrell and Bos are on record as activists seeking public support for homosexual parenting.
I should note in passing that Dr. Gartell is openly lesbian, and that she has been in a lesbian marriage since 2005. She is also an author and editor, most recently an editor of "Everyday Mutinies: Funding Lesbian Activism" (Harrington Park Press, 2001). Dr. Bos worked in the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at Utrecht University and with the Rutgers NISSO Group after graduating in Educational Sciences from Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Her research focused on gay and lesbian health and workplace issues. For her studies on parenting in planned lesbian families, Dr. Bos was awarded a PhD from the Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam. While working on her PhD, Dr. Bos published on gay/lesbian issues in the workplace and co-edited the book Van Adoptie to Eiceldonatie: Op zoek naar oplossing voor onvruchtbaarheid (From Adoption to Oocyte Donation: Solutions for Infertility). I respectfully submit that given the authors' personal bias, the results of the NLLFS study were a foregone conclusion. Vice Number Two - Flawed methodology:
1. The problems inherent in any self-report study. The lesbian mothers' own reports that their children were well-adjusted were accepted by the study's authors uncritically. The authors should have clarified the limitation and usefulness of such qualitative, self-reported data in light of the fact that the lesbian parents knew that the study would be used to further their political cause; in contrast, the control group had no idea how their reports would be used. In addition, most mothers, lesbian or not, would likely report their children's adjustment in a favorable light. Outside observers such as the child's teachers or counselors, if consulted, could have offered a different perspective. 2. The lesbian parents were hardly typical parents: 93% were Caucasian. Most were college-educated (67%). Most were middle/upper class (82%). Eighty-five per cent were in professional or managerial roles. The control sample, however, had significantly more minorities; many more children from the South; they were very different in race composition and socioeconomic status; and the educational level of these mothers was unclear. A statistical adjustment for these differences could have been easily addressed. Had these differences been controlled, they might have been reduced, been proven negligible, or perhaps reversed. 3. The sample was far from random. Participants were recruited from gay and lesbian venues (i.e., lesbian pride events and lesbian newspapers in three major metropolitan areas - Boston, Washington. D.C. and San Francisco). Although the authors acknowledge the non-randomness of their subject pool and the potential problems this situation could pose, this limitation did not seem to limit their conclusions. As a result, a very strong case could be made for selection bias having invalidated the findings. Despite the obvious study flaws, the authors offer the following generalization: "The NLLFS adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population (p.34)." (Italics mine – VJT.)
Vice Number Three - Omission of data which is inconvenient to the authors' case:
Notably absent was data about the sexual orientation of the adolescents or the preferences or expectations for the adolescents' sexual orientation (some of this data was, in fact, collected for the 10-year study). Was this data collected and simply dismissed? ... No research was cited in the Gartrell and Bos study regarding the outcomes of children conceived through sperm donation, when compared to children conceived through the natural union of a man and a woman. The authors address the issue of donor status in a very cursory fashion, almost dismissively. (Italics mine – VJT.)
There's more:
Remarkably, the authors report that the relationship-dissolution rate for the lesbian couples was 48% at the 10-year mark and 56% at the 17-year mark. (The average duration of the relationship prior to dissolution was 12 years.) When compared to the relationship-dissolution rates of the biological heterosexual sisters of the lesbians, the rate of relationship breakup is nearly double for the lesbians.
And what about research which points the other way?
Other research, perhaps even more interesting, was released about the same time as the NLLFS study - research conducted by Marquardt, Glenn and Clark, titled, "My Daddy's Name is 'Donor': A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation." The authors' conclusions included the following troubling negative factors: on average, young adults conceived through artificial insemination were more confused, felt more isolated from their families, were experiencing more psychic pain, and fared worse than a matched group of children who were conceived naturally in areas such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. And the list goes on.
I am amazed that the American Academy of Pediatrics could publish the NLLFS study as serious research. The study’s flaws are not minor; they are huge, gaping holes that you could drive a truck through. The American Academy of Pediatrics is guilty of a sin which is 1000 times worse than quote-mining; this is massive deception, on a grand scale. It deserves to be exposed. I'll leave it to my readers to decide which Pediatrics institute has the most credibility after this: the conservative American College of Pediatricians, or the liberal American Academy of Pediatrics.vjtorley_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply