Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

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

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

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

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

In defense of traditional marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments
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.StephenB
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Keeping in mind the importance of basic natural categories in Jewish law it's interesting that modern pagans still rebel against it. As is seen in their attitudes towards homophilia, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc., depending on how far they take the urge to merge. E.g.
A number of contemporary movements,including the animal rights movement (with its idea that man is no higher than animals), also exemplify the confusion. As animal liberationist and founder of PETA Ingrid Newkirksays, “a rat . . is a pig … is a dog … is a boy.” There are movements to break down the barriers between generations: Witness the recent change in the definition of pedophilia and the publishing of the double Journal of Homosexuality issue, “Male Intergenerational Love” (an apologia for pedophilia). Thus we see animal confused with human, sacred confused with profane, adult confused with child, male confused with female and life confused with death–all of these traditionally the most profound of distinctions and separations, are now under seige. (Homosexuality and American Public Life, Edited by Chrisopher Wolfe,(Dallas: Spence Publishing Company)1999, :104-105)
The Jewish prophets represented this "sinister" sort of pattern with the Tower of Babylon and the Whore of Babylon. I suppose we've yet to see what will become of Lady Liberty.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
You be the judge. Has the ACEP done its homework? Well, at least someone in academia is trying to stand up for the interests of children. Given the decline of American civilization I'm surprised that there are that many left. Most of the research I'm citing is from the people who deny the complementarity of the sexes. Like the anthropologists discussing pedophilia in a morally neutral way they don't have a problem with homophilia either, some don't even have a problem with zoophilia while others write law reviews pointing out that it may be difficult to keep necrophilia illegal.mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Some people actually don't consider this a problem, there are elements in the supposed "sexual desire" community that consider acquiring HIV a rite of passage and so on. But for those unwilling to deny reality yet here are some more of the problems associated with defining yourself by sexual desires and identifying with and joining "communities" based on sexual disorentation:
In the first years of the AIDS epidemic, U.S. officials had no alternative but to negotiate the course of AIDS policy with representatives of a well-organized gay community and their allies in the medical and political establishments. In this process, many of the traditional practices of public health that might have been brought to bear were dismissed as inappropriate. As the first decade of the epidemic came to an end, public health officials began to reassert their professional dominance over the policy-making process and in so doing began to rediscover the relevance of their own professional traditions to the control of AIDS. Bayer and Angell were not alone. Lee Reichman, director of the National Tuberculosis Center, stated "traditional public health is absolutely effective at controlling infectious disease. It should have been applied to AIDS from the start, and it wasn't. Long before there was AIDS, there were other sexually transmitted diseases, and you had partner notification and testing and reporting. This was routine public health at its finest. (Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine Winter, 2003 Quarantine Redux: Bioterrorism, AIDS and the Curtailment of Individual Liberty in the Name of Public Health by Wendy Parmet) If the New York Times and other mass media had given the first thousand AIDS victims even a fraction of the coverage given to the seven victims of poisoned Tylenol capsules, millons of Americans would have learned of the new disease much earlier, and tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans who are now dead might be living. Instead, the Times published fifty-four stories on the Tylenol affair (several on the front page) and a total of three stories on AIDS— none of which appeared on the front page, and none of which used the words 'sex' or 'homosexual.' (Homosexuality and American Public Life Edited by Chrisopher Wolfe (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company) 1999, :122)
mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
...you claim to have “proven” that homosexuality is a problem for society. That depend on what you mean by problem for society. Parents may have a problem with never having grandchildren or they may not. Children may not have a problem with never knowing their parents or they may. Some blind lesbians may not have a problem with trying to have blind lesbian children and so on. What counts as a problem? Apparently most people would have a problem with more and more children engaging in homosexuality, otherwise propagandists wouldn't promote the "born this way" myth to the extent that they do. And yet it is generally just a myth:
Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation. (Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality, D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :98)
Some people might consider that a problem, others might consider this pattern a problem:
The very experience of acquiring a homosexual or bisexual identity at an early age places the individual at risk for dysfunction. This conclusion is strongly supported by the data." (G. Remafedi, “Adolescent Homosexuality: Psychosocial and Medical Implications,” Pediatrics 79, no. 3 (1987), pp. 331—37) . . For each year's delay in bisexual or homosexual self-labeling, the odds of a suicide attempt diminish by 80 percent. (G. Remafedi, J. A. Farrow, and R. W Deisher “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay Bisexual Youth,” Pediatrics 87, no.6(1991), pp.869—75) High risk sex between men accounts for the largest proportion of AIDS cases among adolescents (13 to 21 years of age). Sex between males has been implicated in 70% of the cases that were unrelated to blood products. In a national sample of sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seroprevalence among 20- to 24-year-old male homosexual youths was found to be 30.1%, as compared to an overall rate of 1.4% among same-aged clients. (Pediatrics 1994; 94: 163-168 August, 1994 Section: Articles. Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behavior Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH) Model I, Onset of Behaviors Before Age 13, showed use of cocaine before age 13 years as strongly associated with GLB orientation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45-15.20). Early initiation of sexual intercourse (2.15; 10.6-4.38), marijuana use (1.98; 1.04-4.09), and alcohol use (1.82; 1.03-3.23) also was associated with GLB orientation. (American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatrics 1998; 101: 895-902 May, 1998 Section: Articles The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents Robert Garofalo, MD. R. Cameron Wolf, MS; Shari Kessel, ScB; Judith Palfrey, MD and Robert H. DuRant, PhD)
mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Dr. Torley, here is an apologetic website, that you may be interested in, that looks to have many excellent resources: Apologetics 315 http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/12/apologist-interview-holly-ordway.html?spref=fbbornagain77
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Should alcohol consumption be illegal? No, but should drunks be a protected category in the workplace? (Believe it or not they are. Thank you Bush I) Should being an alcoholic be grounds for divorce? With almost universal unilateral (i.e. "no-fault") divorce that's a moot point in most states. Should we end unilateral divorce? I betcha doing so would end the gay marriage debate. Here's an interesting thing to consider: should being an alcoholic be grounds for being forbidden to marry? Why not? Because it's all about me me me me me, and what I I I I want and we should all be freeee to be you and me me me me me. Society be damned.tribune7
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
All I see is mynym’s cut and paste job of news articles and references to Nazi Germany. As I said, evidence and rationality don't matter to people already willfully denying the complementarity of the sexes. They've denied reality and that's that. But here is a sample of civilization on the decline anyway:
I begin here by briefly documenting the wider output of filmic representations of homosexuality in the period... No other films depicted homosexuality as unequivocally, centrally, or positively as these. Michael (1924), the story of the tragic love of a painter for his model/protégé, was a remake of the Swedish film Vingarne (The Wings, 1916); Der Fall des Generalstabs-Oberst Redl (1931) dealt directly with the Redl scandal. [a scandal involving blackmail and homosexuality] At least one of the several films dealing with Frederick the Great (Fridericus-Rex-Zyklus, 1922) pointed to his homosexuality, although all those dealing with Ludwig II of Bavaria managed to keep quiet about his. Though not the main characters, a lesbian and a gay man are central to the plots of, respectively, Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora’s Box, 1928) and Geschlecht in Fesseln (Sex in Shackles, 1928), the latter worth noting — despite the fact that it ends unhappily for all concerned — for the tender physicality shown in the love between two men in prison. Gays are part of the ambiance of decadence in two of the Mabuse films (Dr. Mabuse der Spieler, 1921/2, and Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse, 1933) and in films, of which there were apparently many, like Nachte der Weltstadt (Nights in the Metropolis, 192?), where lesbians dancing together were shown as characteristic of urban night life. (Less and More than Women and Men: Lesbian and Gay Cinema in Weimar Germany By Richard Dyer New German Critique, No. 51, Special Issue on Weimar Mass Culture (Autumn, 1990) :6)
An interesting contrast:
Most of the [Judaic] rules of the law of holiness relate to the basic categories of the natural world and of human experience. Such categories as the living and the dead; mortal and divine; human and animal; air, sea, and land; male and female; past, present and future are common to most peoples. They provide a framework of basic 'natural' categories that render the universe meaningful. What is peculiar to the Jewish people is that these natural categories are also moral categories and anything that is ambiguous or threatens to blur the boundaries of these categories is treated as abominable. (Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries By Christie Davies American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No.5, Mar., 1982 :1032-1063)
mynym
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
QuietID--I’m pro-ID but also in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage. This is not because I’m in favor of homosexuality per se but because I don’t think we should expect our laws to be biased in our favor. The shoe could easily be on the other foot, and biased against Christians. 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. 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. How about support of child marriages? Failure to do so could show a cultural/religious bias.tribune7
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Just to be clear about the names: it's the American College of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Sorry.vjtorley
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
A Note on the American College of Pediatricians Some readers have queried my reliance on research by the American College of Pediatricians to support my contention in #70 above that children reared by two individuals of the same gender are not as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father. Wikipedia paints them a right-wing splinter group, and in particular, takes issue with claims made on their Facts about Youth Web site, accusing them of misrepresenting the findings of various authorities whom they quoted, including Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. However, the American College of Pediatricians has responded to these accusations here . Readers can view the exchange with Dr. Francis Collins here . I believe that fair-minded readers will agree that the ACEP has not in any way mis-represented Dr. Collins’ views. When making up my mind on whether I should trust the American College of Pediatricians or the larger American Academy of Pediatrics, I do not decide the matter by doing a head count. Nor do I decide the matter by looking at the ideological stance of the colleges in question, for I consider the liberal views of the American Academy of Pediatrics to be just as ideologically motivated as the views of the American College of Pediatricians. Instead, what I do is look at the evidence they cite in support of their assertions. In #70 above, I cited an article entitled, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change? by the ACEP, which argued that children reared by two individuals of the same gender are not as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father. The article cited 44 references. Here they are. If the American Academy of Pediatricians has better evidence for its liberal views on homosexual parenting than the ACEP has for its conservative view, then the onus is on it to produce that evidence. You be the judge. Has the ACEP done its homework? 1. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340. 2. Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. "Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p. 48. 3. Kristen Andersen Moore, et.al. "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002) pp.1-2. 4. Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45. 5. Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31. 6. Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children's Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54. 7. Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42. 8. David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146. 9. Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153. 10. SchneiderB, AtteberryA, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute;2005:1-42.Available at www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystructure.pdf. 11. Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005). 12. Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995). 13. Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005. http://narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html. 14. Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC;Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001. 15. P. Morgan, P. Morgan Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002. 16. J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC. 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." 18. F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213. 19. J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129. 20. Ibid., pp.127,128. 21. F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7. 22. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179. 23. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179. 24. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59. 25. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14. 26. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492. 27. "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2. 28. Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79. 29. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252-253. 30. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982). 31. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125. 32. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). 33. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. 34. A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431. 35. "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20. 36. Marie Xiridoui, et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in "steady relationships" reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)] 37. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81. 38. Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91. 39. Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk =for some form of emotional problems; including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence..." 40. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244. 41. R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874. 42. Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939. 43. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657. 44. Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------vjtorley
December 7, 2010
December
12
Dec
7
07
2010
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
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. mikev6 suggested looking at other societies for evidence of this supposed danger to society. Gays serve openly in the British army. Have they suffered as a consequence? Your post at 130 seems to equate homosexuality and pedophelia. Do you believe those two things are closely related? You state above "As long as homosexuality is hidden in a society there will be less harm, but when it becomes legalized and accepted throughout society they become a group, or even many groups. Consequently, the associated problems begin to inevitably creep into the society." Are you suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal in order to "save" society? And in your last paragraph, you lump alcohol consumption in with adultery, lying, cheating and homosexuality. Should alcohol consumption be illegal?Muramasa
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Shogun@130: Hmm - what religious "undertones" do you think I'm objecting to in your phrase "objective analysis of the pros and cons"? It's the clinical bureaucratic tone that concerns me. 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. However, think of the benefits! Once we have the gays and child molesters taken care of, we can continue to improve society in other ways. Alcohol is definitely one place for improvement that you've mentioned - we can either ban it outright or ensure everyone has to take counseling after a drink. You've mentioned humanists and atheists that are unable to see right and wrong clearly; these folks obviously are pushing us down the wrong path. We need to lead them back to the light for their own good and the good of society; it's hard to find them sometimes but I'm sure their neighbors will turn them in out of concern. And once that's done, there are some Christian churches that are way too liberal and really don't follow Jesus well enough... As you say, it's our moral responsibility to help them with their problems. It's not like they have any "natural" rights.mikev6
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
mikev6-
And I’d be interested in what you propose after your “objective analysis to weigh the pros and cons”. Concentration camps? Ovens?
The fact that you portray my opposition to homosexuality as parallel to concentration camps and eugenics is a proof that you view any statement with some religious undertone as a "big bad evil monster". I mean come on, why would I even go to that extreme and suggest such a thing. My suggestion however is that after we recognize it as problem we should seek treatment to it. This is where therapists and doctors come in. The same way that pedophilia is being treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments. I believe similar treatments can help in the case of homosexuality. Now some might argue that such treatments may not work because they still think that homosexuality is natural, but they should also keep in mind that even in the case of pedophilia there is no empirical evidence to show that these treatments work for them, so does that mean that pedophilia is also natural just because they haven't found one conclusive cure to it? I surely hope not. But at least they are doing something to treat it and it's working for many people. And since homosexuals are also human beings, it is our moral responsibility to help them overcome their problem rather than encourage them with the illusion that it is their "natural" right.
All the data I’ve seen presented so far has been on characteristics of homosexuals as a group.
I don't see a big distinction between homosexuality as a group and homosexuality itself. A group is basically homosexuality in action. As long as homosexuality is hidden in a society there will be less harm, but when it becomes legalized and accepted throughout society they become a group, or even many groups. Consequently, the associated problems begin to inevitably creep into the society.
Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, and most certainly predates that book. I think society and homosexuality are well known to each other and don’t really need a formal introduction.
We also know that sexual perversions and psychological problems are as old as humanity itself. The fact that something existed with humanity does not, in & of itself, mean that it is right. If I tell you that religious belief has also existed as long as humanity, would you buy that as a reason to prove the validity of religion? I doubt you would! Neither would I. Longevity is irrelevant to validity. And speaking of longevity, the universal "yuck" factor has also existed as long as there was homosexuality, so don't you think that it is a perfectly natural reaction? Or does it mean that the vast majority of humanity had been dumb intolerant bigots? Let me clarify the point that our side had been trying to make: I agree that some immediate reactions to homosexuality might be religiously inspired, and there are also reactions driven by the "yuck factor" that do not need religion. But in any case, we can establish an objective basis to determine the harm inflicted on society if we introduce homosexuality as a norm. And despite some knee-jerk responses, we try to establish our point as politely as possible, and your side is still trying to make us all look like intolerant "Taliban" monsters. But I don't recall any Talibanis proving their points objectively through sources and statistics. In short, we have already proven that homosexuality is a problem for society. The question now goes to your side: What do you have next on the agenda? Are you able to make a rational objective defense of homosexuality and show that it has no problems for the society? I doubt that any of you dares to step outside the box of your subjective atheist/humanist world view that has grown accustomed towards accepting "sins" as "rights". This is why your best arguments are subjective and emotional sentiment towards homosexuality and disdain towards religion, and this is what's clouding your judgement and making you unable to think objectively about the issue of homosexuality that you are strongly advocating as a part of your humanist ideals that sell people the convenience of life without religious moral responsibility, and enjoy a world life where no one thinks that they will be held accountable for drinking alcohol, lying, cheating, and committing adultery and homosexuality.Shogun
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
mynym@124:
"On the other hand, children are unable to form valid consent, and pedophilia causes a great deal of lasting harm to the child." You’ve never debated a homosexual activist who was what we would think of as abused as a child. He didn’t think that he was abused or harmed, so how can you say otherwise? It seems to me that the main problem with the “Do whatever you can get away with doing without causing harm.” is that we all already know that right and wrong are not quite that subjective.
And your point is what exactly? Current laws set age limits on what is considered consensual. Just because minors feel they have the ability to form consent doesn't mean they can, and declaring in later life that they weren't abused or harmed doesn't negate the abuse. And what does a "homosexual activist" have to do with this?mikev6
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
mynym@123: OK - I'll bite. What on earth do your references in this comment have to do with my quote? Especially where mine was a deliberate over-statement used as a comparison.mikev6
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
Shogun:
To establish a valid case for homosexuality, there has to be some kind of objective analysis to weigh the pros & cons concerning the long term social effects of introducing homosexuality to society.
Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, and most certainly predates that book. I think society and homosexuality are well known to each other and don't really need a formal introduction. All the data I've seen presented so far has been on characteristics of homosexuals as a group. Homosexuality has been very visible and legalized at various levels in different countries. Surely by now there should be studies documenting the serious societal erosion directly caused by gays and how they've destroyed the fabric of these societies? And I'd be interested in what you propose after your "objective analysis to weigh the pros and cons". Concentration camps? Ovens? These are, after all, people we're discussing. Humanists see this as an issue of individual rights and freedoms, while your language sounds more like an eugenics discussion. Which is ironic on this blog.mikev6
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Shogun writes,
Notice how the exact same trend in intelligent design VS Darwinism debate is also taking place here. Most Darwinists take a short cut around the ID argument and simply claim that it is religious, even when the ID argument is perfectly scientific and rational. The pro-homosexuality side is doing the same here, their best argument against their opposition is calling them religious. As if this is supposed to “magically” refute their argument.
I guess I'm an exception to this rule. I'm pro-ID but also in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage. This is not because I'm in favor of homosexuality per se but because I don't think we should expect our laws to be biased in our favor. The shoe could easily be on the other foot, and biased against Christians.QuiteID
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
mynym, just what do these "facts" show? That gay and lesbian people sometimes are violent towards each other (for example)? So what? Do you think heterosexual people don't commit domestic abuse etc? The breathtaking arrogance and audacity of people who think they can decide for other people what constitutes a good and loving relationship absolutely amazes me.zeroseven
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
mynym: "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." Thanks for clarifying in 124 what you actually mean by that: homosexuals fall in the same category as Nazis, pimps, pedophile perps, and murderers. So, most Nazis, pimps, pedophile perps, and murderers are really nice people, too, they are just a bit disoriented, huh?molch
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
mynym, thanks for your post. Yet more references and objective evidence showing us the problems with homosexuality, and still the opposition subjectively claim that there is nothing wrong with it!!Shogun
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
There is no evidence (AFAIK) that two adults of the same sex in a committed relationship causes harm to those individuals. Denying the innate complementarity of the sexes harms individuals and does not promote the general welfare. Denial is linked to destruction and the absence of life, affirmation is linked to life. E.g.
The introduction of the [AIDS] epidemic to developed countries, such as the United States, followed relatively soon after the 'gay revolution' that had its origins in the riot at the Stonewall Inn, a bar frequented by homosexual men, in New York City in 1969. [...] Similar patterns soon followed in other developed countries, such as Canada, Australia, and those of western Europe. (The AIDS Epidemic -- Considerations for the 21st Century Fauci, Anthony S. The New England Journal of Medicine September 30, 1999; 341: 1046-1050)
Recognizing patterns of this sort will be called bigotry, e.g.:
There is more than enough room for honest, philosophical debate on providing benefits to anyone. But that isn't what we got. Instead, we got Karen Johnson launching a speech so filled with hate-mongering and fear-peddling as to be breathtaking. [...] She even invented her own illness, something she called "gay bowel disease," an ailment with which the specialists at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are unfamiliar. But they are getting interested in studying what should be called Bigot's Brain Disease. (The Arizona Republic. February 14, 1999 Sunday, Final Chaser Arts and Ideas; Pg. E15 Intolerable Behavior: Legislators Guided by Hate, Capitol Is No Place For Anti-Gay Venom." Byline: Stephen Tuttle, Special for The Republic) And yet: Forty six percent of all patients were HIV positive. [...] Enteric organisms, predominantly protozoal, which have been traditionally subsumed under the 'gay bowel syndrome' occur frequently in homosexual men who are also HIV positive. (Gay bowel syndrome in HIV positive homosexual men Chen M. 1997. Venereology-The Interdisciplinary International Journal Of Sexual Health. 10: (4) 223-225)
All of this is harmful, not to mention extraordinarily expensive. It's interesting that Darwinists generally support homosexuality now. On the other hand, children are unable to form valid consent, and pedophilia causes a great deal of lasting harm to the child. You've never debated a homosexual activist who was what we would think of as abused as a child. He didn't think that he was abused or harmed, so how can you say otherwise? It seems to me that the main problem with the "Do whatever you can get away with doing without causing harm." is that we all already know that right and wrong are not quite that subjective.mynym
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
I could just as easily assert that all Catholics are immoral because they support an organization that encourages child abuse. It would make as much sense, and be equally bigoted. That pattern isn't new:
....in the 1930s, the régime levelled similar accusations against the army Chief of Staff, Werner von Fritsch, who would not comply with nazi policies, against Catholic clerics in order to bring the Church into disrepute so that its influence in education and the youth movement would be reduced, and against branches of the independent youth movement. The pragmatic position of certain nazis in power seems evident from the fact that Röhm was not the only homosexual in the nazi movement, and that before his liquidation homosexuality seems to have been tacitly tolerated in the SA and the Hitler Youth. (Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany By Harry Oosterhuis Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 32, No. 2. (Apr., 1997), :187-205)
That's the charge of those who judge lest they be judged but note the pattern in the real world:
...homosexual practices are increasing among men and growing towards a major vice. The most arresting report from Europe comes from Germany. (American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 6, May, 1932 The Family By Ernest R. Groves :948) ...in those years when Hitler was shaping his party to take over Germany’s destiny he had his fill of troubles with his chief lieutenants who constantly quarreled not only among themselves but with him....No other party in Germany came near to attracting so many shady characters...pimps, murderers, homosexuals... (The Rise and Fall of theThird Reich New York, Fawcett Crest, 1960 By William Shirer :173) It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions. One thing, however, is certain—not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal... (The Memoirs of a Sexologist By LUDWIG L. LENZ (New York: 1954) pp. 429 ff) The fact is that in most of these para-military organisations which allegedly serve renewal and discipline and which present themselves as muscular and manly there is another cult apart from that of ultra-patriotism. We have become increasingly accustomed to the figure of the ‘nationalist leader’ who occupies his spare time by seducing young boys.” [i.e. homosexual mentorships] Konrad Heiden (1945, p. 235) went further and described homosexuality as being pervasive and indeed institutionalized within the S.A. movement and its predecessors: “The perversion was widespread in the secret murderers’ army of the post-war period and its devotees denied that it was a perversion. They were proud, regarded themselves as ‘different from the others,’ meaning better.” This is perhaps not surprising, since so many of the leaders of the S.A. were open homosexuals... (American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 5, Mar., 1982 Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries By Christie Davies :1057-1038) In the end, According to the chief psychiatrist at Nuremberg, Douglas M. Kelley, only two of the twenty-two major defendants were without 'vices'..... (Journal of Modern History, Vol. 47, No. 2, Jun., 1975 Psychohistorical Perspectives on Modern German History By Peter Loewenberg :239)
It may be that Kirk and Madsen settled on the methods and modes of propaganda that they did as a result of their psychology.mynym
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
The “religious” side has actually done a far better job in presenting an objective basis for their side. When people are willing to deny the innate complementarity of the sexes just because they have some gay friends that they want to be nice to they aren't interested in reality. But here it is anyway:
Another subtopic of interest to anthropologists is the homosexual mentorship (Herdt, G.H. 1981. Guardians of the Flutes. New York: Mcgraw-Hill)(Herdt, G.H. ed. 1982 Rituals of Manhood. Berekeley: Univ. Calif. Press) (Herdt, G.H. 1984. Ritualized Homosexual Behavior in the Male Cults Of Melanesia. 1862-1983: Ref 178. :1-82) Mentorships are a much more common form of homosexual behavior than previously considered. These relationships usually form between a preadolescent and either an older adolescent or an adult. Adams (Adams, B.D. 1985. Age, Structure, and Sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. 11:19-33) has summarized the ethnographic data for male mentorships. [....] Ethically this is a particularly touchy issue. There is an enormous prejudice against similar kinds of patnerships in the United States (indeed they are typically illegal), and the older partner is usually defined as mentally ill or as a sexual criminal. (Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality, By D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :69-98) For example: …inside the charred King house, investigators found a note Alex had written saying he admired Chavis and wanted to be just like him. “Before I met Rick I was straight but now I am gay,” Alex wrote. (The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) August 26, 2002 Monday Final Edition NEWS; Pg. A4 HEADLINE: TWO JURIES TO DECIDE IF CHILD MOLESTER, 2 BROTHERS OR ALL 3 KILLED FLA. FATHER BYLINE: Bill Kaczor)
But it's not as if anyone already willing to deny reality in order to be nice to their friends and so on is interested in evidence.mynym
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
What strikes me is how theoretical are all these criticisms of homosexuality. .... How many of you have close friends who are gay? How many of you have even talked to a gay couple in a long standing relationship? 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. Sometimes facts even seep through in the media:
Most recent violent crimes involving gays and lesbians were committed by other homosexuals… ‘We realized that there is a lot of conjugal violence and violence within the gay community.’" (The Gazette (Montreal) April 4, 1996, Thursday. News; In Brief; Pg. A3 Pilot project tracking violence against gays) Gays and lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence, according to a survey made public yesterday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (The Gazette (Montreal) October 23, 1996, Wednesday, Final Edition. News; Pg. F10 Gay domestic violence; Study documents abuse in homosexual relationships Byline: Vicki Haddock) Battering is also a problem among gay couples: the National Coalition on Domestic Violence estimates that almost one in three same-sex relationships are abusive, seemingly more than among heterosexual couples. (Newsweek October 4, 1993 , U.S. Edition Special Report; Pg. 26 Patterns of Abuse Byline: By Michele Ingrassia et al.) For example: A real life example: “She [a lesbian] used to say that she’d reneged on all her principles by sleeping with a woman who’d slept with a man. And she believed herself to be the victim. After the last beating, she said to me: ‘Look at you. Everyone’s going to think you’re the victim’. (The Guardian (London) October 19, 1998 The Guardian Features Page; Pg. 8 Silent partners Byline: Mel Steel)
Note that Kirk and Madsen argued that gays should use their own psychological dynamics to manipulate others:
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image. (After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s By Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :183)
Theoretical? I doubt the bruises were theoretical.mynym
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Notice how the exact same trend in intelligent design VS Darwinism debate is also taking place here. Most Darwinists take a short cut around the ID argument and simply claim that it is religious, even when the ID argument is perfectly scientific and rational. The pro-homosexuality side is doing the same here, their best argument against their opposition is calling them religious. As if this is supposed to "magically" refute their argument. The interesting thing is, it is the pro-homosexuality side that is making subjective comments based on their atheist/humanist world view. Their argument goes like this: I like gay people, they are nice, and if you are against them you are religious!!! The "religious" side has actually done a far better job in presenting an objective basis for their side. The pro-homosexuality side did not even bother to make an attempt to prove why their subjective world view is better. Simply calling the opposition "religious" and downplaying the validity of the sources & statistics they cited is not a valid rational response. To establish a valid case for homosexuality, there has to be some kind of objective analysis to weigh the pros & cons concerning the long term social effects of introducing homosexuality to society. Simply saying that you know some nice gay friends does not do the trick. I'm sure there are pedophiles who seem nice as well. Our side has shown an objective analysis of the issue and we saw more harm than good.Shogun
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
vjtorley:
Well, I hope that clears up a few matters. I don’t expect that Finnis’ argument will convert everyone reading this thread, but it should be clear that we are not dealing with subjective preferences here. Finnis is making certain assumptions about human nature which are either true or false.
Well, having read one of Finnis' papers already, I'm not sure this one is any more convincing. His arguments make perfect sense if you accept the Church's position on marriage and related matters as a pre-condition and argue from there. Otherwise, one is left wondering about things like single parenthood or IVF, etc.mikev6
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
vjtorley: "Homosexual sex is by its nature incapable of bringing two people together at all levels of their being" those levels being: "biologically as well as at the level of feelings and intentions" Despite your claims, a heterosexual couple that has sex which CANNOT lead to procreation (i.e. at least one of the partners is infertile at the time of intercourse due to medical reasons, age, birth control, etc. etc.) is in exactly the same situation as a homosexual couple having sex. Infertility precludes procreation IN PRINCIPLE. That's what infertility means. So, one of those "levels of being", that you claim to be necessary for a true loving sex act, in this case the biological level, is inherently absent in both cases. Thus, this statement of yours about heterosexual couples seems entirely arbitrary and unjustifiable: "The procreative dimension of the act is still there, even if the couple have no plans to procreate."molch
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
markf (#93) I should like to add, as a supplementary remark to my previous comment, that the seminarians I knew in the nineties were genuinely striving to sublimate their sexual orientation, and generally succeeding, which goes to show that people are not machines after all. I don't know if any of them actually completed their seminary training. Regarding priests: I went to about 15 schools across Australia during my childhood. About half were Catholic. I've known many priests over the years, but thankfully I've never met a bad one. I have very good reason to believe that the priests I met were chaste, if only because the advice they gave me in Confession on dealing with temptations against purity betrayed their lack of first-hand experience, so to speak. This is another example of people who managed to sublimate their sexuality. It can be done. I realize that there is an ongoing controversy over the merits of compulsory celibacy for priests, but that is another matter. (Incidentally, Catholic priests in the Eastern rites of the Church may be married men, although they have to get married prior to their ordination, and they cannot become bishops.)vjtorley
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Markf (#93) You asked:
How many of you have close friends who are gay? How many of you have even talked to a gay couple in a long standing relationship?
In response to your question, I can't say that I have any close friends at the moment who are gay, but I knew a gay couple about ten years ago who were friends of mine. I and some friends of mine visited their place a couple of times and we had dinner with them. (One of them was a Christian.) They were genuinely nice people, and I believe they're still together. They were also very good cooks. Back in the nineties (at a time when, incidentally, I was not affiliated with any religion), I had some friends who were Catholic seminarians and who were also gay. I lived in a group house at the time, and there was one occasion when they took the rest of us along to a gay bar (my first and only visit to one). The doorman knew at once that some of us were "norms" (his term for heterosexuals, I assume). Inside, I remember listening to one gay man movingly narrate how his gay partner of several years had died in his arms, of AIDS. His love for his partner was unmistakably genuine; it's a pity they weren't monogamous. One thing I noticed, though, when listening to these gay seminarian friends of mine talk (we sometimes had dinner together at our group house, back in the nineties) was that they felt a certain revulsion towards the female body. This came out in certain rather crude remarks they occasionally made (anatomical references, that sort of thing). At some psychological level, they seemed to dislike women, even though many of them had close female friends. That puzzled me. I noticed the same thing again, about ten years ago, when I and some of my friends were in a bar, and as it happened there was a gay guy there who was talking very candidly about sex. He made some remark about the process of giving birth, saying that he found the whole thing distinctly yucky. He even said that for him, the idea of putting his organ into the same cavity where women gave birth was utterly revolting. I can't imagine a heterosexual man having that reaction. If this feeling of revulsion towards the female body turns out to be widespread among gays (and I don't know if it is), then there are two possibilities: either gays somehow acquire that feeling towards women as they grow up while straight men don't, OR most boys have this feeling initially, but straight men learn to overcome it while gay men don't. Another friend and flat-mate I had in the late eighties and early to mid-nineties (again, an ex-seminarian, and a very intelligent man), was a Catholic, but developed doubts and left the Church. (Incidentally, I left the Church in 1989, and didn't really return until 2005.) I had never suspected this man of being gay, but he "came out" for a while, a couple of years after leaving the Church. A few years later, though, I found that he had returned to the fold. As he told me later, he experienced a real sense of spiritual grief upon leaving the Church, and I think that, coupled with his sense of intellectual disappointment at what secularism had to offer him, prompted his return. I don't know what he's doing now, and he never discussed his gay relationships with me. Going back into the late seventies, I spent a year working in a store before going to university. This was probably a good idea, as I was only 16 when I finished high school. The manager of the store was a very pleasant lady who (I was later told) was a lesbian, although she never said as much to me. She was quite traditional in many ways - "old school" as she put it. (That was why she hired me: she sensed I was the same.) About twice a week, two men who were friends of hers would drop in and have a chat with her. Looking back, it was obvious that they were gay, but I didn't realize it at the time, and only learned of it later. The following year, when I went to the Australian National University, I got involved with the pro-life movement. That was in 1979, when ideological battles were still being fought over the issue. I'd stick up a pro-life poster, and a couple of hours later it would be ripped down. I do recall that one of the pro-choice feminists who was vehemently opposed to the pro-life movement had had a very damaged childhood: at the age of three, she'd witnessed her alcoholic father raping her mother on the stairs. That experience had made her a militant feminist. Not surprisingly, she was also a lesbian. Well, that's about the sum total of my experiences with gays. Make of it what you will. I can say that I haven't had any unpleasant experiences that would cause me to develop prejudices against gay people, and the gays I've known have been decent people.vjtorley
December 6, 2010
December
12
Dec
6
06
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
1 14 15 16 17 18 21

Leave a Reply