Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

_{vjtorley
December 3, 2010

Intelligent Design

6}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

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

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

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

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

In defense of traditional marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

zephyr,
Clive Hayden above:

“But consenting adults who practice incest can consent in a meaningful way”
Clearly then Hayden sees consensual gay sexual relations in the same light as consensual incest, damaging and destructive and every bit as taboo. Glorious. No not really. Hayden despite your and andrewjg’s intellectual gymnastics on the Taliban and homosexual rights, it’s very clear what the position is of the Taliban when it comes to homosexuality. It’s also very clear who is lumping adult consensual homosexual relations in America with rabid comparisons and fears of pedophilia, bestiality, (we even have necrophilia) and incest (thanks to you Hayden) on this thread.
I was responding to this remark, which has as its criterion consenting adults consenting in a meaningful way:
I’ve to agree with markf. And for our society, it is not important whether some acts are regarded as immoral by some religious groups, but whether these acts are performed by consenting adults: therefore, homosexual acts and pedophile acts aren’t equivalent – a minor can’t consent in a meaningful way!
Don't take me out of context. My response to the above comment is spot on. Nice try though.Clive Hayden_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Mikev6 (#192) Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I'd like to address your complaint about "quote-mining with serious balls." Referring to a paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, E.C., and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health ("Technical report: Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 2002;109;341-344; available online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/341 ) you charge that the American College of Pediatricians has "taken a paper that completely contradicts their entire thesis, take one sentence and twist the meaning, and then add the paper to the reference list as 'support.'" I find the "quote-mining" charge curious, because Intelligent Design theorists are often accused of quote-mining by Darwinian evolutionists. Just today, I was re-reading a book entitled Is Evolution Proved? - A Debate Between Douglas Dewar and H.S. Shelton. With an introduction by the editor, Arnold Lunn. Hollis and Carter, London : 1947. It's available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nc_E24fhip8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dewar+Shelton+1947&source=bl&ots=gKF3bO2BtJ&sig=6LEEw8upZLollgFEAk_GTVCqHA8&hl=en&ei=NA__TKSTG5CqrAfLrOXDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 94, Shelton, who defended Darwinian evolution in the debate, wrote:
I am somewhat suspicious of quotations by anti-evolutionists, which sometimes give a false impression by taking passages out of their context.
That was in 1947. It's an old charge, then. There is an interesting exchange on what we now call the Cambrian explosion, later in the book. On page 162, Dewar wrote to Shelton:
You admit that all the phyla were in existence in the Ordovician period. This is equally true of the aquatic classes. Thus no new Phylum or aquatic Class of animals has evolved since the Ordovician period.
On page 167, an annoyed Shelton shot back:
You say I admit that all phyla were in existence in the Ordovician. Why admit? I believe I asserted it. That is good evolutionary evidence. Phyla do not come into existence in an erratic and unaccountable way, as might well happen if they were specially created.
Dewar triumphantly responded on page 170:
I had very good reasons for saying that you 'admit' that all the phyla were in existence in the Ordovician. We are arguing a case and your statement or assertion to the above effect, being very damaging to your case, is in legal parlance an admission. There is another reason: you asked for my authority for saying that the vertebrates existed in the Cambrian, implying that you did not admit this. In consequence, instead of basing my argument against evolution on the existence of all phyla in the Cambrian, which you might have been inclined to contest, I used your admission by basing my argument on the existence of all phyla in the Ordovician. Clearly some of my statements are too subtle for you. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
(As an aside, we now know that there were vertebrates in the Cambrian . Dewar was right on that score.) The point I am making here is that when engaging in debate, it is perfectly legitimate, as an argumentative tactic, to use damaging admissions by an adversary, in order to support a position that runs totally counter to the adversary’s stated beliefs. Thus it is utterly irrelevant that the above-listed paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which is cited by the American College of Pediatricians (ACEP), “completely contradicts their entire thesis,” as you point out. Fine; that makes it all the more valuable as evidence. Again, I see no ethical problem if the ACEP is content to "take one sentence." They are under no moral obligation to take any more than one. It would, however, be wrong of the ACEP to "twist the meaning" of the sentence they cite. You allege that they do this. But do they? What do they actually claim? In their main article, they write:
Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern.(17)
And in footnote 17 they add:
The Academy acknowledges that the "small, non-representative samples ... and the relatively young age of the children suggest some reserve."
Well, what does the AAP paper actually say? Here are some damaging admissions in their paper:
Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian are impossible to obtain. The secrecy resulting from the stigma still associated with homosexuality has hampered even basic epidemiologic research. A broad estimate is that between 1 and 9 million children in the United States have at least 1 parent who is lesbian or gay.(1) ... Compared with young adults who had heterosexual mothers, men and women who had lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief relationship with someone of the same sex,(10) but in each group similar proportions of adult men and women identified themselves as homosexual. ... Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biologic parents, their subsequent psychologic development has to be understood in that context. Whether they are subsequently raised by 1 or 2 separated parents and whether a stepparent has joined either of the biologic parents are important factors for children but are rarely addressed in research assessing outcomes for children who have a lesbian or gay parent. ... The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
Is data sparse, as the ACEP alleges? Even the AAP admits as much. Does it "give reason for concern"? I'd say so. While underplaying the fact, the AAP admits that children of gay and lesbian parents are more likely to be involved in same-sex relationships. More pertinent, however, is the following admission by the AAP:
Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biologic parents, their subsequent psychologic development has to be understood in that context.
Translation: children of gay and lesbian parents fare OK, in comparison with other children of divorced parents. Fine; but what about in comparison with children from two-parent families? In footnote 17, the ACEP states that "The Academy acknowledges that the 'small, non-representative samples ... and the relatively young age of the children suggest some reserve.'" Well, yes. It does acknowledge that, in black and white. You correctly point out that the "reserve" is related to the small sample size. Indeed it is; did the ACEP state otherwise? The word "acknowledge" in footnote 17 of the ACEP article appears to bother you, but I would suggest that you have a look at the passage I cited from Dewar at the beginning of this post:
We are arguing a case and your statement or assertion to the above effect, being very damaging to your case, is in legal parlance an admission. (Emphasis mine – VJT.)
Having admitted that "[t]he small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve," I am bemused when I read in the very next sentence of the AAP article:
However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
"Persuasive?" "Demonstrating?" Who are they trying to kid? Those are very strong words to use, when you are basing your conclusions on "small and nonrepresentative samples" where "most of the children" are "relatively young." So, is the ACEP guilty of "quote-mining with serious balls" as you allege? I'll let my readers decide. Now, because I'm a generally courteous person, I'll supply the full context of the AAP article and quote some statements which I imagine the ACEP would vehemently disagree with. However, I should point out that I’m doing this as a favor. Ethically speaking, I’m under no obligation to do so. Here goes:
Empirical evidence reveals in contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy,5 or dealing with general problems of parenting.6 Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children’s activities.7 Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers. Similarly, few differences have been found in the research from the last 2 decades comparing lesbian and heterosexual mothers' self-esteem, psychologic adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing.8,9 Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychologic functioning on interviews and psychologic assessments and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers.10 Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles11–13 and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.6,14 Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices.14 They report similar role conflicts, social support networks, and coping strategies.15,16 Children's Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biologic sex. None of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers. No differences have been found in the gender identity, social roles, or sexual orientation of adults who had a divorced homosexual parent (or parents), compared with those who had divorced heterosexual parents.17–19 Similar proportions of young adults who had homosexual parents and those who had heterosexual parents have reported feelings of attraction toward someone of the same sex.20
Near the end of your post, you issue a challenge:
However, if anyone reading this can spot a similar example of quote-mining from the AAP, I'll change my mind.
Stay tuned! That will be the subject of my next post on this thread.vjtorley_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

QuiteID@198 I am not even sure what the legal definition of marriage is. But I think 'marriage' is in a real sense between a man and a woman. I don't think it can be between two men or two women regardless of what the law says. I mean it is not a man made construct. I think secular governments should do one of two things:- 1. Recognise civil unions of which marriage is a type i.e. being between a man and a woman. 2. Grant civil unions the same rights as marriage. 3. Allow business to decide if it wants to if it wants to provide any civil union related benefits to its workers and if so to choose if it offers to all types, or any particular type. Since it is the businesses money the owner should be able to provide benefits as to their convictions. 4. Government should not provide any civil union related benefits at all. Basically I think that in many instances the law does not need to choose sides. The culture will decide what is appropriate or not. But I don't think redefining what marriage is, is something government should get involved with. And it is not a discrimination issue.andrewjg_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

mynym, I’m afraid that no study is good enough to convince the opposition. It's probably a matter of their emotional conditioning. They've been conditioned to have a negative emotional reaction whenever anything negative about homosexuality is said. So it's not a matter of facts, logic and evidence. As Kirk and Madsen note:
Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality. (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :152-153)
In some sense it's to keep people stupid and ignorant when it comes to homosexuality. It seems to work pretty well.mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

I would note that it will be the Left that will become increasingly totalitarian with respect to health. They have always been the first to use the general welfare as an excuse to control and manipulate (rather than educate) other people. In the meantime homosexual activists have been saying that it's all a matter of biology. That's part of the dangers of such propaganda but it's too effective to give up, mainly because most people are stupid.
The appearance of an argument can often aid an emotional appeal for other reasons. [...] Where the target of an emotional appeal is aware of the attempt at manipulation, he will tend to resist it; where he is distracted from the true nature of the appeal by a 'cover argument,' the emotional effect, paradoxically, will be all the greater. Thus, an argument can function as a distractor. Our remarks apply primarily to the (intellectually) lower 90% or so of the general population, whose beliefs more or less never alter their emotions. This is largely true of the upper 10%, as well, but, fortunately, not entirely. The highly intelligent sometimes display the capacity, although less often the inclination, to step outside themselves and analyze their feelings, and the causes of their feelings, dispassionately, and this sometimes modulates the feelings themselves. (After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :138)
mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

If two persons love each other then I see no reason why they should not be together, whether they are gay or straight. I thought the discussion was about legality. If a morbidly obese person loves cake I see no reason why they should be prevented from having some. However, if they want to teach children that they should always have what they love then I want to be at liberty to say that they should not.mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Sorry guys, but this is an issue that I disagree with. If two persons love each other then I see no reason why they should not be together, whether they are gay or straight.above_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

QuietID -- I don’t understand this middle ground people are taking (homosexuality should not be illegal but should be officially discouraged and homosexuals not given the right to marry etc.). How do you feel about adultery? Do you think that should be illegal, and, if not, do you think society -- which is not the same as the state -- should give it approval? Or do you perhaps even actually think that the state should give it approval? For instance end the military policy of it being a court martial offense, or forbidding it to be taken into account in adjudicating matters in family courts?tribune7_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

With respect to illegality... shrug, it's not as if heterosexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage is illegal anyway. On another note, why do you suppose that zoophilia is illegal in many states?mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

mynm, why not make it illegal then? It's for the same sort of reasons that morbid obesity isn't illegal. It isn't desirable but that doesn't mean that it should be made illegal. On the other hand, the fact that it should not be made illegal does not mean that children should be taught that being obese is desirable. If only fat people were better at victimization propaganda every fat kid being bullied at school would prove that everyone should play pretend that being fat is desirable, good and so on. After all, if we do not say that morbid obesity is good and healthy then some poor child will be victimized. Another victimized group that you seldom hear anything about is ugly people, despite the fact that studies show that they're less likely to get jobs and so on. And there are even more people and minorities. Take flatulent people for example, they're actually nice people so I'm not sure why people seem to hate and fear them so much. There are even stories of flatulent people being fired for no other reason than being flatulent. There should probably be a law created to protect flatulent people.mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

mynm, why not make it illegal then?QuiteID_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

...homosexuals should have equal rights including the right to marry. Maybe thinking about it this way would help. If you are successful then every man will have the right to marry another man no matter what their sexual desires are or their reason for doing so. This will apply equally just as the law already applies equally to all. The law is not based on subjective sexual desires, it's objectively based on biological facts:
The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind. (American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No.1, Feb., 1984. Gender and Parenthood By Alice S. Rossi :10)
mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

I don’t understand this middle ground people are taking (homosexuality should not be illegal but should be officially discouraged and homosexuals not given the right to marry etc.). Who said that? All I have said is that homosexuality should not be treated as the equal of heterosexuality because it is not. One form of heterosexuality is currently being promoted and prescribed by the State because it promotes the general welfare and it is in the interests of children to do so. That is all. And even that is currently being undermined and done away with to the point that the general welfare and the interests of children don't matter anyway. A Sadean philosophy on such matters is becoming more common and yet people will be surprised when there are more sadists. My view is that if homosexual behavior is not made illegal, homosexuals should have equal rights including the right to marry. Everyone already has equal rights no matter what their sexual desires happen to be at any given time over their life-span. Not because I like it but because things are NOT BETTER when the state adopts a pale imitation of the values of the church. That depends on what you mean by better. The philosophy of natural law that the American Founders promoted has always proven itself superior in promoting life, wealth and the general welfare.mynym_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

I don't understand this middle ground people are taking (homosexuality should not be illegal but should be officially discouraged and homosexuals not given the right to marry etc.). My view is that if homosexual behavior is not made illegal, homosexuals should have equal rights including the right to marry. Not because I like it but because things are NOT BETTER when the state adopts a pale imitation of the values of the church. This namby-pamby middle ground deprives the state of its authority to enforce laws and deprives the church of its ability to contrast strongly with the world. Pick your approach, people, but enough of this Laodicean attitude.QuiteID_{December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

mynym, I'm afraid that no study is good enough to convince the opposition. The whole idea of legalizing homosexuality hinged on the claim that it was perfectly natural which was prematurely taken from few studies conducted by none other than homosexual researchers. But now that it was shown that homosexuality has no natural/genetic basis, the society has already been desensitized enough into accepting it as a norm thanks to the tactics of Kirk and Madsen. I wonder what would these atheists say about a religion that was propagated via the same deceptive tactics!! Wouldn't they be attacking it day and night. Notice the interesting duplicity here. The atheists/humanists side has learned to differentiate between a social/psychological/medical problem caused by homosexuality and the concept of homosexuality itself. But when the slightest harm is inflicted on society in the name of religion, they would not hesitate to demonize the entire religion based on the actions of the few without even bothering to rationally differentiate between the actions of extremists and what the religion truly teaches.Shogun_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others. Lol, next thing you know they'll be reporting that men and women are different.mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. A sympathetic study of such studies:
Recently this same myth-breaking tradition has focused on gay parents and their children. This literature has responded to lesbians' need for information when they fight for custodial rights in the legal system. In an effort to inform the court that lesbians are reasonable parents, a number of small studies have shown that lesbians compare favorably to other single mothers.... (Sociological Research on Male and Female Homosexuality by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz Annual Review of Sociology, 1988, 14 :125-47) (Emphasis added)
But I thought that the point of these studies (other than providing talking points for activists and so on) was to compare heterosexuality and homosexuality? It's well known that being fatherless is not associated with virtue. That's why the term bastard is an insult and so on. If studies show that homosexuality compares favorably with single mothers that should not be advanced as evidence of its desirability. Sometimes researchers of that sort will do their best to portray homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality and then note in the end some "special difficulties" faced by children in such situations. This is because according to the researcher nothing has anything to do with homosexuality. E.g., a special difficulty:
"[A] specter.... haunts some children of homosexuals: AIDS. For Stefan Lynch, 24, watching his father die five years ago was particularly lonely. The father talked about it little, already feeling guilty about "abandoning me when I was a teenager," recalls Lynch. ....In some families, AIDS strikes more than once. Breauna Dixon, 7, wrote a picture book about her father's death that is used in AIDS support groups. Breauna now lives with her father's partner--who became her guardian--and the man's new live-in partner (her third "dad"), who has HIV. (U.S. News & World Report September 16, 1996 Culture and Ideas; Pg. 75 Kids with gay parents By Joseph P. Shapiro; Stephen Gregory)
Another special difficulty, it seems that the boys of lesbians often resent their mother's masculine female partner. E.g.:
I used my kids to deceive the public and get gay rights. I thought only of my own needs and not of their futures. Although I love my kids, I have damaged them. Now lesbians have got what I fought for, and I wish I'd never done it. We deceived society. We said gays only had problems because society put them on to us. We came across well. We portrayed ourselves as the warm, loving, normal, alternative family, and we used these children to get the gay rights message across. They [the children] were so cute; they talked about having two 'mummies' who loved each other like a mother and father, and they had us cuddling the kids and reading to them at bedtime. We talked about all the male support and role models we had for the [two] boys. But it was a load of bull -- we didn't. My boys had no masculine role models and no masculine identity. Jonathan's 11 now, and he's angry. He knows he was conceived by artificial insemination and that I don't know his father, but he's always asking me, 'What color eyes did my father have? What does he look like? What does he do?' I can't tell him because I don't know. He's still in counseling -- all about his anger and his lack of a father. I see the hurt on the boys' faces daily -- especially when the father-son events come along, like school camps and father-son evenings. "I often hear the kids saying how neat it would be to have a Dad. They go straight to any man who will show interest in them. They're starved for male affection. Jenna [her daughter] is so hungry for male love I'm scared she'll be abused. ("I was wrong about lesbian parental rights," The [Auckland, New Zealand] Evening Post, November 30, 1994, pp. 40-41.)
"I thought only of my own needs and not of their futures." But what is to be expected among those who define their "identity" by their own sexual desires? What is to be expected of those who argue that anything other than fulfilling their desires is "living a lie," as if their own desires define the truth and morality?mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

For gods sake people, what is it with this raging, unending obsession with homosexuality ? And the constant suggestions that such people are somehow deviant and need to be changed. Who gives us the right to make these judgements ?Graham_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Natural can mean: innate, or inborn, and hence ineradicable (or at least, difficult to eradicate). This isn't exactly true. Things which are innate can sometimes easily be changed and that was one of the problems with the "born this way" propaganda that gay activists debated among themselves. After all, if people began to consider homosexuality a birth defect and found a treatment for it, what then? Would the gay community support that choice? What about parents aborting babies based on innate "gay" characteristics? Etc. It was always known that there were problems with false propaganda of this sort but apparently it is quite effective on ignorant and stupid people. At least in the West:
In the West, for instance, it may be common to expect that a homosexual preference is life-long, exclusive, and may even be genetic. McIntosh (McIntosh, M. 1968. The Homosexual Role. Soc. Probl. 16(2):182-92) has argued, however, that this kind of homosexuality is a relatively new Western cultural phenomenon, and Weatherford (Weatherford, J.M. 1986. Porn Row. New York: Arbor House) questions the extent to which exclusive homosexual preferences are even characteristic of present day U.S. culture. The cross-cultural evidence suggests that life-long or exclusive homosexuality is a rare phenomenon. Bisexuality and situational or ad hoc homosexual behavior are more common. (The Cross-CulturalStudy of Human Sexuality Annual Review of Anthropology,Vol. 16, 1987 by D. L. Davis and R. G. Whitten :69-98)
mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

A little old on this thread now, but... vjtorley@133 Since I do try to read some links proposed by people in discussions, I thought it would be worth exploring the ACEP paper proposed by vjtorley in #133. I can't say I've read the entire paper closely. I was struck by the number of studies on single parent families supporting the idea of the "ideal" family unit. I would need to see some analysis that this had application to same-sex couples and I couldn't see anything of that sort in the list. Also, the references criticizing the methodology of current research were not from scientific organizations - I'd want to vet the credentials on those. In browsing through the article, I came across this sentence: Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern.(17) Curious as to what concerns might be there, I checked the footnote: 17. American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, EC, and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. "Technical report: Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 343. The Academy acknowledges that the "small, non-representative samples ... and the relatively young age of the children suggest some reserve." Odd - why the change in wording? It does sound cautionary - the Academy "acknowledges" it. Let's read the paper... Yes indeed, the summary says: The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve However, it's clear from the context of the rest of the paper that the "reserve" is related to the small sample size. The authors are cautioning that one should be careful in drawing conclusions. Obviously, a nice example of quote-mining in action. So, what are the results we need to be careful about? Here's the rest of the summary:
The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve. However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others. Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning. Children whose parents divorce (regardless of sexual orientation) are better adjusted when their parents have high self-esteem, maintain a responsible and amicable relationship, and are currently living with a partner.22,31 Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother’s homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.22,24 Parents and children have better outcomes when the daunting tasks of parenting are shared, and children seem to benefit from arrangements in which lesbian parents divide child care and other household tasks in an egalitarian manner28 as well as when conflict between partners is low. Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children’s development
OK - this is quote-mining with serious balls. The authors have taken a paper that completely contradicts their entire thesis, take one sentence and twist the meaning, and then add the paper to the reference list as "support". And add a snide comment just for fun too. At this point, whether there is any merit in the other references to support vjtorley's case or not, I can't trust the article or the ACEP to be a reasonable guide. vjtorley has complained that the "other" organization - the AAP - is equally biased to the left. Perhaps, but I'd trust it more after this exercise. However, if anyone reading this can spot a similar example of quote-mining from the AAP, I'll change my mind. And for those of you looking for studies on the "other" side, this paper has 31 references.mikev6_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

We should resist this temptation, in the absence of scientific evidence of any kind that gays form a natural category. It is interesting that many argue that they can transcend sex (transexuals, etc.), yet at the same time many argue that they cannot transcend being gay in the least. They're immutably oriented to only one sex and cannot choose otherwise, yet the biological reality of sex itself is portrayed as a choice. If sex is a choice then how can homosexuality be an immutable, biological fact?mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Mynym, if you were armed with a comprehension arrow, if you will, and your target was the point I was trying to make, you’d pretty much be firing in the opposite direction. Your "point" about bigotry and intolerance? I didn't miss it, almost any schoolboy in America knows about bigotry and intolerance even if they're almost illiterate otherwise. By the way, no one is making the “fat people” analogy but you. Actually the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance makes the analogy themselves. And of course psychologists as well:
So why is being fat considered unattractive? It is because it deviates from this culturally defined, media-driven norm of physical attractiveness. One can speculate as to why this prototype of physical attractiveness emerged in the first place. For one, there is the association of being fat with being unhealthy. Unfortunately, even though this generalization is not supported by evidence, it is propagated by media. You might compare the plight of other groups in society such as gay people, who have been portrayed by media as pedophiles. The discriminatory process is a vicious one. (What Would Aristotle Do? The power of reason by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. Psychology Today
Do you hate fat people? Are they not good enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as your Gays©? Have I mentioned that I know a nice fat person? That means that being fat is nice, not to mention that I'm nice and tolerant also.mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I'd like to move the discussion along by focusing on two common errors that are made when people discuss homosexuality. The first is to assume that "gays" constitute a natural category or "type" of human being; the second is a failure to distinguish between two senses of the word "natural." The problem with assuming that "gays" represent a "type" of human being is that this way of talking leads us to think that gays have a separate "good of their own": gays sex might be wrong for person A but right for person B. As the old song has it,
"Now the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, What might be right for you might not be right for some."
We should resist this temptation, in the absence of scientific evidence of any kind that gays form a natural category. In his very fair-minded article, Evolution, animals and gay behavior, Jerry Coyne asks:
Was prolific gay behavior in ancient Athens the same thing, biologically, as the behavior of gays in 1930s Chicago? Who knows?
Why should we assume that "gays" in ancient Athens have anything in common, psychologically, with gays today? Where's the evidence? The fact that the behavior is similar doesn't necessarily indicate a common cause. Coyne also points out in his article that there is no common factor underlying homosexual behavior in animals:
Can animal studies really inform work on human homosexuality? I’m not an expert in this area, but Mooallem doesn’t paint an optimistic picture. He shows, and I had guessed this, that "gay" behavior in animals (by this I mean "same-sex" sexual behavior) is a grab-bag of diverse phenomena that don’t support a single evolutionary explanation.
If there's no common explanation of homosexual behavior in animals, why assume that there is one for all human societies? I should add that the "right for me, wrong for you" mantra fails to account for people such as bisexuals. The other trap people fall into when discussing homosexuality is to conflate two senses of "natural." Natural can mean: innate, or inborn, and hence ineradicable (or at least, difficult to eradicate). Or it can mean: good for you, in the sense of: bringing out the best in you, and helping you come to fruition as a human being. When I say that heterosexuality is natural for all human beings, I mean "natural" in the second sense of the word. As an old eighties song puts it:
"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, The purpose of a woman is to love a man."
This is indeed what is best for us. But it doesn't mean that we're born with an innate desire to find a partner of the opposite sex. Indeed, I submit that the evidence indicates the opposite. Boys and girls are born with a natural (in sense 1) aversion to one another, and they have to be subtly and not so subtly educated - even "brainwashed" - into overcoming that aversion and believing that their life's destiny is to be with a partner of the opposite sex. What I'm suggesting is that in the first sense of the word, heterosexuality isn't natural. It's profoundly unnatural. If anything, homosexuality may be natural, or the default pattern, just as "female" is the default pattern of embryonic development in the absence of male hormones. Try a thought experiment. Imagine a plane crashes on a deserted island, and the only survivors are five boys and five girls, aged three or four. Now imagine that nobody finds and rescues them until they are fifteen years old. What will they find? Will the boys be pairing up with the girls? I doubt it. I suspect that without the right kind of parental guidance, the boys would still be with the boys, and the girls with the girls. If I'm right, then homosexuality may be natural in sense 1, while heterosexuality may be natural in sense 2. This may be a scary thought for some, but remember that God intended us to grow up in two-parent families, and in a society where people would teach their children that boys are meant to marry girls, when they grow up. Now can you see why, if homosexuality is natural in sense 1, while heterosexuality is natural in sense 2, efforts by the gay lobby can do real psychological damage to children's natural (in sense 2) development?vjtorley_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

---mynym: "The reasonable philosophy of Aquinas, Montesquieu and others naturally leads to less hatred, not more." Precisely. That also raises the definitive question about what really qualifies as a loving act. Which is better, sappy sentiment or tough love? Is it really a loving act to accept both the gay person and his behavior, knowing that he is about to lose his immortal soul and 20 years of his earthly life. Or, is it better to accept the gay person, reject his behavior, and admonish him, hoping that he may save his soul and live out his full live span.StephenB_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Mynym, if you were armed with a comprehension arrow, if you will, and your target was the point I was trying to make, you'd pretty much be firing in the opposite direction. I do not care to go any further because it's clear it won't go anywhere. By the way, no one is making the "fat people" analogy but you.Berceuse_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Shogun (and others). What a horrible dystopian view of a society you are promoting where the state is so pervasive it regulates which consenting adults can have sex with each other and what sexual acts they may partake in. I would think that is exactly the opposite of the society the founding fathers wished to establish. To avoid this kind of tyranny was why they left England.zeroseven_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Inform children about the design patterns in nature and it follows that they will soon cultivate a seething hatred for homosexuals. It's a bitter irony for "homosexuals" that to the extent there is an immutable group called homosexuals the evidence is clear that people who hate them the most are other "homosexuals." There is little evidence that people who believe in natural law and so on are equally dangerous because their natural tendency allows for common sense and rationality. Who would be more dangerous to homosexuals, Thomas Aquinas or the Marquis de Sade? Note his philosophy, sexual ethic and attitude toward natural law:
Sade is the anti-Montesquieu of the Enlightenment. Indeed, he mentions Montesquieu in Juliette only to denigrate him as a second-rate philosopher. Sade exposes, and opposes, the idealistic dimension of Montesquieu’s political science. Montesquieu’s ideal of justice is unacceptable in Sadean politics. It must be replaced by an implacable judicial relativism, by private passions and interests — precisely what Montesquieu was at pains to repress in order to demonstrate the possibility of peaceful cohabitation. (Original Vengeance: Politics, Anthropology and the French Enlightenment By Pierre Saint-Amand Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 26, No.3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 399-417)
The reasonable philosophy of Aquinas, Montesquieu and others naturally leads to less hatred, not more.mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

...who want to legislate their version of morality. Who woulda’ thunk? Who would have thought that you would try to take a passive position as if someone is "imposing" and so on? The question is not whether or morality will be legislated, the notion that the law is not based on morality is infantile. This comment thread is EXACTLY why teaching ID in high school is being so vigorously fought. It's too bad that fat people aren't as good at victimization propaganda. ("Tends to cry about nothing..." as one psychologist put it.) Because sometimes it has good results, regardless of its roots. For instance, it's good that tolerance of effeminate kids or "gays" is being taught. But it's likely the fat kids in school who are more likely to be bullied and so on. I'm sure that teaching them all that they are caused by blind and ignorant ignorant processes and "survival of the fittest" as you advocate helps greatly in these matters. In any event, the main reason that ID is being fought with such irrational fervor is psychological, not scientific.mynym_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

“You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right?” And plenty of straight people do, including straight married couples. They do. In fact, it is thought that one, if not the main, reason AIDS became a heterosexual epidemic in Africa as opposed to elsewhere was because of this practice.tribune7_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

------Berceuse , In a nutshell, bigotry and intolerance." * America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. * Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. ---Fulton J. SheenStephenB_{December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply