Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

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

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

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

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

In defense of traditional marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments
Berceuse saying those who have a different view that yourself are practicing "bigotry and intolerance" is a good indication that the ones with the different view are not the one who is bigoted and intolerant. You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right? Do you agree that the ones that do are doing something wrong, and that that particular act should be unwaveringly condemned?tribune7
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
“You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right?” And plenty of straight people do, including straight married couples. That is the propaganda of Kinsey. Show evidence for your claims that isn't based on the assumption that prison populations are a normal cross section of married couples in America and so on. In any event, destructive behavior patterns are merely a symptom of the denial of the complementarity of the sexes.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
QuietID -- Throughout most of history laws have been biased against religious minorities, women, racial minorities, non-property owners, etc. You are right in that there have been plenty of unjust laws in history, but it doesn't change the fact that even just laws are bias. A law against theft is a bias against thieves. Actually, I’m a bit conflicted about this. Why? A prohibition against multiple wives is a clear case of religious bias. Now, myself, I have see nothing immoral about prohibiting a a behavior as long as such prohibition is equally applied. In this case, Christians, Jews whoever are subject to the same legal prohibitions as Mormons and Moslems. How about support of child marriages? Failure to do so could show a cultural/religious bias. . . This I’m clear about. We have good reasons for supporting an age of consent. And I agree with you that we do but others from different cultures may not agree and I just want to make sure that you understand that we both support being biased against them.tribune7
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
mikev6, I keep bringing up the "disdain against religion" because that is what is implied from the comments from your side, whether we're talking about this debate or any other debate in this website. The atheist/humanist side have their own subjective world view which they believe it to be better than that of religion. Their opposition to religion is strongly related to their disdain towards religious moral laws. I just find it hard to believe that their opposition to religion is purely based on concern towards minorities (ie. homosexuals). There is more to their agenda.
You proposed that all homosexuals should be “treated”. My question was simply the logical one of how you intended to carry that out. Using jail is one way. You might have others.
And I already answered that it is up to the law on how to carry this out, since I'm not a law expert. That is not to say that we should not speak up against immorality such as homosexuality. If your subjective world view tells you homosexuality is okay, then you should be able to objectively prove that, which is what your side failed to do. Our side has already provided objective evidence to prove our point. If you don't like our evidence then come up with your own, it's as simple as that!
The perceived harm from homosexuality is more indirect
It is a harm nonetheless. And I dare say that this harm is inevitable once homosexuality is brought into the society. We don't have to wait until a drunk driver gets into an accident an kills others before we pass a law prohibiting drunk driving. Let me ask you something, if we introduce homosexuality to society can you guarantee that there will not be an increase in sexual promiscuity, no children reared by same sex parents will be psychologically harmed, and no rise in the risk of AIDS and other STDs? Such problems are directly related to homosexuality when it becomes active in a society.
The idea that we criminalize a group because of their potential damage to something nebulous like “the good of society” is a fairly scary thought. Almost any group (Muslims, atheists, black people, people who are overweight, etc.) could fall under such an edict once you start that process.
You're misrepresenting my arguments again. Recognizing a problem and fixing it does not mean that we criminalize the group of people inflicted by the problem. Having Muslims and black people does not pose a risk in & of itself. There are many peaceful western countries that have Muslim minorities and there is no correlation between having Muslims and rise in terrorism, nor is there a correlation between having black people and a rise in crime rates. Even if there is, we would seek to work with the group in question to solve the problem and not necessarily criminalize them. However, the sources cited here seem to suggest a strong correlation between homosexuality and its associated social, psychological, and medical problems. Unless your side can come up with objective evidence to show otherwise.Shogun
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
--- lastyearon: "This comment thread is EXACTLY why teaching ID in high school is being so vigorously fought." Now that's what I call a delicately constructed, richly conceived, eminently persuasive argument. Inform children about the design patterns in nature and it follows that they will soon cultivate a seething hatred for homosexuals.StephenB
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
QuityeID, I think there are those on this thread who have focused on it, and I think a larger percentage have not. I think if you re-read the comments you can count the number of times the that someone commented that the issue is not primarily about anal sex. My comment had nothing to do with it. My comment was about the historical bias against homosexuality across virtually all cultures. My comment was a direct reaction to the materialist position that this historical multi-cultural bias is somehow at the end of a Christian spear. It's a ridiculous position to even try to defend. You may continue to ignore my point as you wish.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
In a nutshell, bigotry and intolerance No more than pointing out to the National Association for the Acceptance of Fat People that morbid obesity is unhealthy is "bigoted" against fat people. Of course there are fat people who live until old age so that must mean it's fine. Plus I have a fat friend, so that means that the military should drop all fitness requirements. And fat kids get beat up in school, therefore no doctor should publish anything about obesity. Etc. If only fat people were as good at victimization propaganda people would probably be dumb enough to attack people interested in knowledge in that case too. I've always wondered at how successful propagandists are in conditioning people to be willfully illogical and ignorant. I think it has to do with the absence of any iconoclastic tendencies.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right? Most people who choose to deny the complementarity of the sexes at one point or another over their life-span seem to be engaging in it. There is no other explanation for the empirical evidence, e.g.: (D. E. Koziol et al., ‘A Comparison of Risk Factors for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Infections in Homosexual Men,” Annals of Epidemiology 3, no.4 (July 1993) pp. 434-41; G. Hart, “Factors Associated with Hepatitis B Infection,” International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and MDS 4, no. 2 (1993), pp. 102-6; T. Weinke et al., “Prevalence and Clinical Importance of Entamoeba Histolytica in Two High-Risk Groups: Travelers Returning from the Tropics and Male Homosexuals,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 161, no. 5 (May 1990), pp. 1029-31; A. Rodriguez-Pichardo et al., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Males in Seville, Spain,” Genitourinary Medicine 67, no.4 (August 1991), pp.335—38; D. I. Abrams, “The Relationship between Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Intestinal Parasites among Homosexual Males in the United States,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, no. 1(1990), Supplement 1, p. 144—46; N. J. Bodsworth et al., “Hepatitis Delta Virus in Homosexual Men in Sydney,” Genitourinary Medicine 65, no.4 (August 1989), pp.235—38; T. Takeuchi, “Sexually Transmitted Amoebiasis: Current Epidemiology,” Kitasato Archives of Experimental Medicine 61, no. 4 (December 1988), pp. 171—79; W Tee et al., “Campylobacter Cryaerophila Isolated from a Human,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 26, no. 12 (December 1988), pp. 2469—73)mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Berceuse, "You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right?" And plenty of straight people do, including straight married couples. Upright Biped, "My point really has nothing whatsoever to do with anal sex." And yet the anti-gay marriage crowd (including in this thread) has focused intensely on that issue.QuiteID
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
So your point is that this homosexual activist feels that consensual guidelines are arbitrary and that he was ‘abused’ as a minor but doesn’t feel that it caused him any harm. Age is much more of a continuum than sex so any distinctions based on it are actually more arbitrary, not less. And it may be that none of the people classically defined as "perverts" feel like they were harmed or that they're causing anyone any harm. The subjective harm/harmless standard actually has little meaning unless one views the world as objectively ordered in the first place. There is a lot of evidence that we all know it is ordered or as the Founders put it that there are "self evident truths" evident in the self. This knowledge is linked to an awareness of basic natural categories like life and death (perverted in necrophilia), human and animal (perverted in zoophilia), child and adult (perverted in pedophilia) and male and female (perverted in homophilia). To undermine or do away with knowledge such as this is to begin to do away with civilization as we know it. People should know that they are choosing to change their civilization and not be manipulated into feeling that everything will stay the same after groups of "sexual desire" people are invented and so on. As John Adams said:
Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? ....And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? ....I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost.
Note that language tends to speak for itself and that the word virtue was once linked to virility. Who here has heard the media report that the private involved in the Wiki leaks scandal was gay? It seems that the natural tendency of those prone to effeminacy is towards gossip and manipulation over open debate, emotional conditioning and propaganda over logical argument and so on and so forth. Shirer noted it:
By 1926...the charges and countercharges hurled by the Nazi Chieftains at one another became so embarrassing that Hitler set up a party court to settle them and prevent his comrades from washing their dirty linen in public. (Ib. :174) [The Nazis] quarreled and feuded as only men of unnatural sexual inclinations, with their peculiar jealousies, can. (The Rise and Fall of theThird Reich New York, Fawcett Crest, 1960 By William Shirer :172) About three years before the Nazis came to power we had a patient at the Institute who had a liason with Roehm. We were on good terms with him, and he told us a good deal of what happened in his circle...He also referred to Adolf Hitler in the oddest possible manner. ‘Afi is the most perverted of us all. He is very much like a soft woman, but now he makes great propaganda in the heroic morale’. (Magnus Hirschfeld: A Portrait of a Pioneer in Sexology by Charlotte Wolff)
Therefore, all homosexuals feel this way... I haven't said that there are any groups of people defined by sexual desire who feel anything one way or another. ...and from that eventually society as whole will make pedophilia acceptable. (At least, I think this is your point.) You're mistaken.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
"The idea that we criminalize a group because of their potential damage to something nebulous like “the good of society” is a fairly scary thought. Almost any group (Muslims, atheists, black people, people who are overweight, etc.) could fall under such an edict once you start that process." Kind of like Al Sharpton calling for conservative radio talk show hosts to pass a "Public Good Test" or be thrown off the air, eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*Phaedros
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
StephenB: Is it permissible for the mouth to be used as a sex organ? Hands? The urethra also carries urine, but I suppose that's okay because it was Designed that way. And for all those citing all those articles, I assume that you disagree with the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association positions on homosexuality, correct?Muramasa
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Berceuse, My point really has nothing whatsoever to do with anal sex. I just find it hilarious that materialist like to position the cultural disdain for homosexuality within the entire human community as a religious thing (particulatly a western Christian religious thing). It might be hard to imagine a more common thought across all boundries, times, and cultures than the edifice of a man and a woman. Perhaps heating our meat, or the disposing of dead bodies, may rank as high.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
---markf: "Congratulations on your honesty and clarity. In the end it comes down to the “yuck” factor. Note that many children have a similar reaction to conventional sex when they first hear about it. Yuck doesn’t mean wrong." The moral arguments against homosexuality are not based on the "yuck" factor. ---San Antonio Rose: "If the moral objection to male homosexuality is the taboo against anal sex, does the objection go away if a gay male couple abstained from anal sex and only engaged in oral sex?" The moral objection to male homosexuality is not limited to anal sex.StephenB
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right?Berceuse
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
#154
So the Intelligent Design community is a bunch of homophobic religious fundamentalists
That's correct Lastyear, throughout all of human history and all cultures, the men who did not leave their seed in their brothers' rectum were "homophobic religious fundamentalist". The two traits are inseperable, as you have skillfully pointed out.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Re: 152 In a nutshell, bigotry and intoleranceBerceuse
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
So the Intelligent Design community is a bunch of homophobic religious fundamentalists who want to legislate their version of morality. Who woulda' thunk? This comment thread is EXACTLY why teaching ID in high school is being so vigorously fought.lastyearon
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Here's something I overlooked. tribune7 wrote:
Here’s an interesting thing to consider: should being an alcoholic be grounds for being forbidden to marry?
Well, should it? I'd say no. I know I sound like a flaming liberal to some here, but I think consenting adults should be allowed to mess up their lives as much as they want. In fact, it is at the end of our rope that God reaches out to us. I don't feel that we should try to "save" society from itself when it is incapable of doing so. Those who are able to do good are few. They cannot help others to do good by reforming society. Such reforms only sow confusion. Best to stand as a light by contrast with a society that is truly, irrecoverably reprobate.QuiteID
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
I am sure mikev6 can speak for himself, but Shogun just brought forth so outlandish an accusation that I'll say something (I hope mike doesn't mind?): "When did I ever suggest jail? Don’t make up random nonsense and claim that I said that." As is obvious from the section you quoted, mike NEVER claimed that YOU suggested jail time. Nowhere. He built a simple logical chain of hypothetical scenarios from your VERY REAL suggestion that homosexuals should receive treatment for their "condition". And he asks if you think that such treatments should be voluntary or mandatory. You dodge that question artfully by accusing him of stuff he didn't do. So, I am afraid that it is you, Shogun, who is "making up random nonsense" in claiming that other people say things they never said.molch
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Berceuse@148 I would like to know what disappoints you and why. It may add some value and I/others may learn something or get a new perspective.andrewjg
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
shogun@141: (I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "disdain for religion" meme - there was nothing in your comment, or my response, that had anything to do with religion. Nor do I know anything about your particular religious views.) You proposed that all homosexuals should be "treated". My question was simply the logical one of how you intended to carry that out. Using jail is one way. You might have others. However, I've touched on the deeper question further in the comment. The perceived harm from homosexuality is more indirect - they cause harm to themselves and general society. This is unlike pedophilia in which an aggressor and a victim can usually be directly identified. The idea that we criminalize a group because of their potential damage to something nebulous like "the good of society" is a fairly scary thought. Almost any group (Muslims, atheists, black people, people who are overweight, etc.) could fall under such an edict once you start that process.mikev6
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
tribune7 [135], you write:
QuietID, laws are restrictions on our behavior aimed at maintaining a social order. They are always going to have a bias against those whom the writers of the laws feel will endanger the social order. More often than not the bias is correct.
I would dispute that. Throughout most of history laws have been biased against religious minorities, women, racial minorities, non-property owners, etc. In every case those groups were seen to threaten the social order. In some cases, of course, that threat may have been real: the social order changes when women (or religious minorities, or those who do not own property) have full rights. I don't think the bias in any of those cases is correct.
Consider this: suppose a married man wants to take three other wives. Do you believe the law should be changed to allow this? If not, do you recognize that you support bias against Islam? How about 6 other wives? If not you have a bias against original Mormonism.
It would also be a bias against ancient Israelite society. Actually, I'm a bit conflicted about this. I think monogamous marriage is the ideal, but I don't know that it was a good idea to force Mormons to change their religious beliefs to join the United States.
How about support of child marriages? Failure to do so could show a cultural/religious bias.
This I'm clear about. We have good reasons for supporting an age of consent. The age varies from state to state, but the idea that children are incapable of engaging in consensual marriage is well-founded.QuiteID
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
mikev6@131
Are you proposing that these treatments be voluntary? What happens to the patients if they refuse? Presumably you’d need to outlaw homosexuality first (like pedophilia) to make this treatment plan a requirement. And then, if the treatment doesn’t work, we can always use jail time.
If you are capable of objectively defending your point without having to resort to your subjective disdain towards religion, then you wouldn't need to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my arguments. When did I ever suggest jail? Don't make up random nonsense and claim that I said that. None of the people on my side of this debate ever claimed to propose punishment to homosexuality, so the fact that it is you who brought up jail and concentration camps speaks volumes about the extremely prejudiced way in which you view religion as an "evil taliban monster". Keep in mind that demonizing our side does not refute our arguemtns, it only reflects your prejudice. Our point is that same sex marriage should not be legal, and that the society should eliminate the misconception that homosexuality is a perfectly natural norm because many fools still think that it is purely genetic. Now as for proposing jail time for homosexuality and/or voluntary or involuntary treatments, that is all up to the laws of the country in which they live in. Muramusa@132
Shogun, you claim to have “proven” that homosexuality is a problem for society. All I see is mynym’s cut and paste job of news articles and references to Nazi Germany
Is that really all you saw? Our side had been referencing sources since the beginning of the debate to objectively prove our points regarding the social, psychological, and medical problems associated with homosexuality. And so far your side had referenced none. So on what basis does your side claim that we are more "subjective" than they are? I am positive that most of the opposition did not even bother to thoroughly look at the articles and stats posted by vjtorley, mynym and others. Let alone reflect on what their results mean. I'm also sure that they used the same sleight of hand used by Darwinists against rational and scientific ID arguments: simply dismiss them as "religious" and avoid all the headache. Just what does it take to rationally convince our opposition? Is that even possible? As Stephen pointed out in #143:
If you cannot convince a man of the medical fact that he should not be using his lower digestive tract as a sex organ, you will surely never convince him of the moral fact that homosexuality is evil
Absolutely true, they already dropped their rationality long ago when they bought the idea that a lower part of the digestive tract can be used as a sex organ.Shogun
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
This is one of the few topics where I become disappointed in the posters here.Berceuse
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Judging from mynym's 122 & 124, mynym's point is that homosexuals fall in the same ethical category as pimps, pedophile abusers, murderers and Nazis. So, one would think that society should ALREADY have crumbled. Alternatively, since... "The simple fact of the matter is that most people are nice, most of the time. But there’s still something different about sexual disorientations." ... maybe mynym thinks that pimps, pedophile perps, murderers and Nazis are really mostly nice people too, and just a bit disoriented?molch
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
mynym@144:
And they vary, his point was that it’s arbitrary and one shouldn’t impose their values on others. He also pointed out that in some cultures they masturbate their children in order to help them sleep. As I said, you’ve never debated someone who disagrees with the “Jewish”/Western worldview that you’ve apparently learned by osmosis.
Ahh - ok. So your point is that this homosexual activist feels that consensual guidelines are arbitrary and that he was 'abused' as a minor but doesn't feel that it caused him any harm. Therefore, all homosexuals feel this way and from that eventually society as whole will make pedophilia acceptable. (At least, I think this is your point.) Do you agree with him?mikev6
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Thanks Mynym.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
If you cannot convince a man of the medical fact that he should not be using his lower digestive tract as a sex organ... I don't have the article but some researchers have suggested that it's possible that gay men are in the process of evolving. It's also a running joke among other pagans that the reproductive organs are too close to the excretory. One commented that it would be like building an amusement park next to a sewage plant. For instance, supposedly PZ Myers could design a better reproductive system as it is too close to other systems and so on. Yet I wonder where he would put the excretory system in the abstraction of his mind? Maybe Myers could put it closer to his brains and then what is already true of him metaphorically could be closer to the truth literally? Perhaps an out of the way spot like the upper leg, and just let the excrement run down it? After all, if it did happen to be there then evolution, whatever it is, would explain that just as well as it would “explain” every other possible position.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
And your point is what exactly? Current laws set age limits on what is considered consensual. And they vary, his point was that it's arbitrary and one shouldn't impose their values on others. He also pointed out that in some cultures they masturbate their children in order to help them sleep. As I said, you've never debated someone who disagrees with the "Jewish"/Western worldview that you've apparently learned by osmosis. Just because minors feel they have the ability to form consent doesn’t mean they can... And just because someone is eighteen that doesn't mean that their consent is necessarily any more valid. The law is arbitrary because it has to be so and it traces back to a certain view of the world. ...and declaring in later life that they weren’t abused or harmed doesn’t negate the abuse. So you're going to tell him that he was harmed when he says that he was not? Isn't harm subjective? Or is there actually an objective order to things which even "perverts" know? After all, they wouldn't get much out of perversion if they didn't have at least some knowledge of the true version of things. And what does a “homosexual activist” have to do with this? Apparently he knew much more about this than you do.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
1 13 14 15 16 17 21

Leave a Reply