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
markf@54 If divisiveness is the problem then we are in a very sad state. There are so many divisive issues that I can't see how society can operate except on the most superficial level without allowing people to talk about them. This is not the same as having something forced down your throat. You don't have to download the app. Now imagine the homosexual lobby made an app that contained a homosexual bill of rights. Clearly it would be divisive Would Apple be right in blocking it? I think not. The supreme court reaches decisions on a regular basis which are divisive. Should they stop doing so? Rather just pretend they don't exist. Lastly remember if you own an iPhone you can only get apps from one place, the iStore. It would be different if that were not the case. I think Apple has actually removed the app because they don't like the message. Surely it can't be something as petty as divisiveness.andrewjg
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
zephyr@59 Just because you wish to conflate issues - i.e. acceptance of behaviour with tolerance of it does not mean others are engaging in mental gymnastics. We are not defining words in one way and then using them in another or anything like that. The fact it homosexual lobby will not tolerate any opinion contrary to their own which is exactly the same as the Taliban.andrewjg
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Perusing again some of the comments, wstack9 #19, talking about the risk of pedophilia and bestiality being given protected legal status if you know gays can do what they please. Yeah wstack9, gay rights will really open the floodgates, pedophilia and bestiality will be considered hunky dory and just fine next. Clive Hayden above: "But consenting adults who practice incest can consent in a meaningful way" Clearly then Hayden sees consensual gay sexual relations in the same light as consensual incest, damaging and destructive and every bit as taboo. Glorious. No not really. Hayden despite your and andrewjg's intellectual gymnastics on the Taliban and homosexual rights, it's very clear what the position is of the Taliban when it comes to homosexuality. It's also very clear who is lumping adult consensual homosexual relations in America with rabid comparisons and fears of pedophilia, bestiality, (we even have necrophilia) and incest (thanks to you Hayden) on this thread. Hey don't hold back now..zephyr
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
My opening comment on my post #56 re my comment to mikev6 is a reference to something way back now, mikev6's post #44.zephyr
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
Also on the subject of whether homosexuality is innate or not, I have noticed the straw-man of genetics continually brought up, and that there is no evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait/s. Well duh, it’s only absurdist sociobiology that would suggest that in the first place. As an IDist I would point out that if one were to say homosexuality has its origins in the genes, one is arguably contradicting oneself, trying to have it both ways. It’s a blatant materialist argument to think of sexuality and human character traits for that matter as accounted for by DNA. That doesn’t mean it’s not innate, it just means that it can’t be accounted for by the genes. After all, human sexuality is a fundamental part of human consciousness and consciousness cannot be reduced to genetics, it remains mysterious and hazy, perhaps forever impenetrable in its essentials. The hard problem of consciousness, the problem of qualia remains. The attempt to explain away human consciousness (self-awareness and awareness of self-awareness) by waving the magic wand of DNA is just that, a non-explanation, it is scientific reductionism in principle. Such “reasoning” clearly follows from scientific materialist and reductionist presuppositions, it is scientific materialism itself. There are some things distinctive about human character, our minds themselves, that go beyond nurture and environment and unless we are materialists, it cannot be accounted for by DNA alone or predominantly even (except indirectly). A fortiori human sexuality cannot be accounted for by DNA alone, albeit sexuality, like our character and personality traits themselves, has innate dynamics. Even if this remains unexplained and little understood. Human sexuality along with other distinctive human character and personality aspects shows up the limits of scientific materialism (and therefore neo-Darwinism itself). So those of you all antsy about the ‘gay peril’ contradict yourselves here. That is you are saying there is no evidence that homosexuality is ultimately genetic, therefore it must be the environment, ipso facto the permissive social and political environment. This sets up a false choice, false since it is materialist. Just because it is not genetic does not mean it is not innate, it just means it is not genetic. Our innate characteristics, our consciousness AND our sexuality itself cannot be reduced to genetics. It is only an unquestioned materialist assumption passed off as proven science that says otherwise. I am not saying environment and upbringing has no role to play btw. Human sexuality is staggeringly complex of course and we still know very little.. I hope none of you fire and brimstone types have siblings or children that are gay (assuming some of you are parents or plan to be parents) for their sake because they certainly won’t be coming out of the closet to any of you. You know many gay adolescents attempt or committ suicide precisely because of all the unhinged hatred they face. Not that the world will be less rid of gays for all that, you cannot stamp out gayness even if you come with your pitchforks and tar and feathers. Homosexuality has always been a part of humanity and it always will be (whatever its complex origins), even if you oppose its expression or very existence. Ahmadinejad can deny that homosexuals exist in Iran, but they do for all that. Just like they exist in the most conservative parts of Oklahoma, Idaho, North Dakota and Alabama. Homosexuality has always been present even in the most conservative social and political cultures (it was just hidden, underground, in the closet) so bang goes the hypothesis of permissive liberal culture is going to turn your kids into raging ‘fags’ scare-mongering. Naturally one can just keep ignoring uncomfortable obvious facts that don’t jive with da preaching. vjtorley (since you initiated this thread) if you have anything to say on homosexuality that I consider remotely likely to restrain or put off some redneck from bashing up some ‘queer boys’, I will let you know. Still waiting..zephyr
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
mikev6 well put, that's exactly it - vjtorley contorts himself. Homosexuals are not immoral but homosexuality is, in fact it's "spiritually toxic" according to him. Not that homosexuals are toxic, it's just that their sexuality is toxic, even as their (and our) sexuality is a fundamental part of our humanity. Sorry mikev6 for calling you mikevd above!! Yikes. Borne and Shogun, venting no-holds-barred, lumped pedophilia in with homosexuality, and Borne with necrophilia too! One can engage in all kinds of mealy-mouthed convoluted rationalisations here, but not only is that delusional, it is plainly bigoted. Also the assertions by vjtorley that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, less committed to monogamous relationships is a dubious one. The promiscuity among Western heterosexual youth is incredible, and if anything there is some evidence that young men and women in Western urban centers are more promiscuous than their parents and grandparents were (that includes the free love babyboomer generation). I have worked with the 18-25 demographic very closely over the last couple of years (and youngsters from all over the West, mainly North America and Europe) and their promiscuity far surpassed anything I saw as a university student two decades ago. There is simply no way homosexuals, even the most promiscuous ones, could surpass them as far as sleeping around goes. And I mean the young women here especially (young guys will be young guys after all), which is especially stupid and destructive. There are complex reasons for this that go beyond the scope and intent of this comment, but in part to oversimplify it surely has to do with strained family relations, alienation from parents, ennui and lack of meaning in life in an excessively consumerist and commercialised culture. Are you going to blame all that on gays btw? Oh wait it's not gays you have a problem with, it's just the spiritual toxicity of gayness. Which America are you people living in? Something from a Doris Day movie? The broken homes, the single moms, the absentee fathers, babies born out of wedlock - it is a growing epidemic especially in the cities. I know this may come as a shock, but what gay men do in their own homes, in privacy is not going to change the social and family collapse and decay of urban America one little bit. Nor are gays and the supporters of gay rights responsible for it. And then bornagain77 predictably with his Sodom post. Hey bornagain how come God hasn't struck down the Castro district in SF yet (and for that matter plenty other gay districts from NY to London, Paris and Sydney)? What is God waiting for? Oh wait let me guess, He did strike down the sodomites with the vengeful wrath that is HIV right?zephyr
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Sorry the numbers of the comments have all changed. My comment above was intended to respond to what is now comment #48 (but I guess it could change again!)markf
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
#44 andrewjg The question of whether anyone should be allowed to express any opinion is a difficult one - but that is not the issue in vj's post. I think I agree that it should be legal to hold any moral opinion subject to the laws of slander and libel. And, as far as I know, no one is suggesting that the Manhattan Declaration be forced to take down its web site. But that doesn't mean that every organisation has to condone every opinion. In particular it is up to the staff of Apple Inc as to whether they think the Manhattan Declaration is something they want to condone. The real issue in vj's post was whether change.org lied in describing the Manhatten declaration as hateful and divisive and whether that decieved Apple into removing the application. The Manhattan declaration is not the declaration of independence and it is quite hard to digest, but I would say that it not hateful but is divisive. However, it is naive in the extreme to suppose that Apple Inc decided to remove the application without reading the declaration and judging for themselves. Change.org may have brought it to their notice but there is no way they just said "Oh. OK we had better remove it then".markf
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
andrewjg,
So I don’t think a comparison with what the Taliban is at all appropriate. I think the Taliban is more easily associated with the homosexual rights lobby. They seem intent on squashing any opposing voices.
Good point.Clive Hayden
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
DiEb,
there’s no condescens­ion here?
Nope.Clive Hayden
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
Above post should be markf@32andrewjg
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Dieb,
I’ve to agree with markf. And for our society, it is not important whether some acts are regarded as immoral by some religious groups, but whether these acts are performed by consenting adults: therefore, homosexual acts and pedophile acts aren’t equivalent – a minor can’t consent in a meaningful way!
But consenting adults who practice incest can consent in a meaningful way.Clive Hayden
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
markf@2 The Taliban – who seem to crop up a lot in this debate – also seek to restrict a number of sexual and social practices because they find it wrong for religious reasons. This includes homosexuality of course, and adultery, but is extended to things such as women being educated, men shaving their beards, and even dancing and music. How shall we answer them? By saying our religion is right and theirs is wrong? I think we all know how that debate gets settled. The questions is not about banning behaviours. It is about the the right to make representation that these behaviours are immoral. We - most of use anyway - don't want to ban homosexuality. We want to do a few simply things e.g. protect the institution of marriage as being uniquely between one man and one woman and critical of the ongoing success of civilisation. All conceptions of marriage cannot be accommodated. It is an either or. So I don't think a comparison with what the Taliban is at all appropriate. I think the Taliban is more easily associated with the homosexual rights lobby. They seem intent on squashing any opposing voices.andrewjg
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
mikev6@41 Refer to comment no. 2. My point refers to one's right to say X behaviour is right or Y behaviour is wrong. If homosexuality is off limits then so is any behaviour. As others have pointed out perhaps comparing it to polygamy is better because it is more direct. It looks to me like Europe in fast becoming a place where any criticism of homosexuality is off limits. I think the Manhattan declaration being remove from the app store is an example of the same thing happening in the US. So for me it is more a free speech issue. We do live in a secular society so as long as you do not at least directly impinge on someone else's rights you should be able to do whatever you want. But with matters such as what the State's definition of marriage is, all sides have a right to be heard. All sides cannot be accommodated. Either marriage is peculiar to one man and one woman or it is not. It is either a flexible man made construct or it is something from God.andrewjg
December 5, 2010
December
12
Dec
5
05
2010
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
#39 vj Thanks. I too appreciate your honesty and intelligence although as you can see I feel you are deeply mistaken on the issue of homosexuality. Unlike other issues that have arisen here I do not participate out of intellectual interest. Many of my closest friends are gay, and while things have improved vastly in the last 50 years I know them to be the subject of unreasonable prejudice.markf
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Though, the ecumenical flavor of the Manhattan Declaration does leave a bad taste in my mouth - I did sign the petition! Hopefully, all the commentators here are not just blogging their support, but signing as well.jpark320
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
andrewjg:
The point about pedophilia is not that homosexuality leads to it – although I have heard some link them, that is a completely different discussion – it is that if one has the attitude that we are not allowed to make judgements about behaviours, that all behaviours are off limits, then it will ultimately lead to all behaviours being legitimate.
I don't recall anyone saying that you're "not allowed" to make judgements about behaviors. In fact, I fully support your right to express those judgements. Just don't expect others to agree with those judgements or withhold public criticism. The conflating of homosexual activity with pedophilia is a favorite one (the Catholic Church is using it)but misses some key points. There is no evidence (AFAIK) that two adults of the same sex in a committed relationship causes harm to those individuals. On the other hand, children are unable to form valid consent, and pedophilia causes a great deal of lasting harm to the child. The idea that the "slippery slope" leads to all types of behavior becoming the 'norm' is overly simplistic.mikev6
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
vjtorley:
A homosexual orientation is not a choice. Thus people cannot be labeled “immoral” for having that orientation. However, conduct is another matter. The choice to engage in a sexual act on a particular occasion is a voluntary one (with the exception of rape). That choice may be legitimately described as “immoral” if the act in question is immoral.
I see. Sexuality is a fundamental part of being human. While homosexuals have no "choice" in the nature of their attraction, they apparently have to opt-out of their fundamental natures to avoid being labeled "immoral" in your view. Assuming that you are straight, how would you react if you were told that your only choices were "being immoral" or sleeping with members of the same sex? In other words, while you claim there is no choice, in essence you still regard homosexuality as a choice - a choice between sex with people you have no attraction to or no sex at all. The interesting point about the OP and other comments here is that there is the basic assumption that homosexuality is intrinsically 'immoral'. So I'll ask: Why is homosexual activity immoral?mikev6
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Markf I would like to dissociate myself from Ilion's intemperate remarks. I know you for an honest man, and no fool. Pax.vjtorley
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
mikev6--But you don’t think there is a touch of condescension in labeling an entire group “immoral” because of something that isn’t really a choice? If it's not a choice it's not a sin but are you saying every homosexual act is not a choice? I could just as easily assert that all Catholics are immoral because they support an organization that encourages child abuse. You can easily assert anything but to say that the Catholic Church encourages child abuse is not merely making an untrue claim but a bigoted and hateful one as well.tribune7
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
As for Sowell's argument that the state is concerned with marriage because it has an interest in procreation, I would argue that this misses the main interest of the state. The state should be involved in marriage because the institution of marriage provides a beneficial setting for the raising of children, not just their creation. And gay couples are just as capable of raising children successfully, the unsubstantiated claims of gay adoption opponents notwithstanding.Sotto Voce
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
vjtorley, Your argument that the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage is not compelling. Suppose I grant your (highly questionable) assumption that gay marriages will not in general be sexually monogamous. Suppose I also grant the (again highly questionable) assumption that a trend towards non-monogamous marriages would destroy the institution of marriage. You think the way to save marriage is to legislate against gay marriage. Consider the following hypothetical: It is a statistical fact that members of a certain ethnic community, let's say Inuits, are extremely likely to engage in open relationships. Would you think of this as sufficient grounds for denying Inuits the right to engage in marriage? If the answer is no (as I hope it is) I would like to know why your argument concerning gay marriage is materially different. Why should the mere statistical fact that members of this group are more likely to engage in open relationships justify the denial of gay marriage?Sotto Voce
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
I'm going to go out on a limb here and side with Markf on the issue of homosexuality. One of the things I enjoy about being an American is the right to decide my own "pursuit of happiness." Others should have that right for themselves, even if it means the right to pursue sin. I don't see that I am victimized by homosexual relationships or even -- this will be controversial -- that my marriage is threatened by the marriage of homosexuals. A lot of things are immoral that are not illegal, and I like living in a society where a religion does not determine what's legal. (To anticipate a point and answer a conflation, homosexuality is obviously different from pedophilia because pedophilia is not consensual.)QuiteID
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Markf @ 32 and your mask has slipped (long ago, in fact), revealing an intellectually dishonest fool. So there!Ilion
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
My comment expressed no opinion on homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or religion, or religious values, or science. My comment was and is that "we" don't get to define "them." If "we" want to call ourselves sinners, that's great have at it. But "we" have no authority to speak for "them" when "they" can speak for themselves--and apparently many of "them" have. "We" cannot define "them" in "our" terms. Why? Because that's taxation without representation, which I'm sure many can understand. It's colonialism. It's patronizing. It's arrogant. It's unmerited. It's probably meaningless.LarTanner
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
I've to agree with markf. And for our society, it is not important whether some acts are regarded as immoral by some religious groups, but whether these acts are performed by consenting adults: therefore, homosexual acts and pedophile acts aren't equivalent - a minor can't consent in a meaningful way!DiEb
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
When I read the comments relating to this post I feel like the mask has slipped from Uncommon Descent and its true nature has been revealed. Like vj I believe in calling a spade a spade and the nature that has been revealed is self-righteous and bigoted. I draw a distinction between the issues of abortion and murder. I can understand that some people find abortion deeply wrong and wish to prevent it because they believe the foetus is an innocent victim. I don’t agree, but I understand the moral imperative to campaign against it because there is a potential victim. But the attitude to homosexuality that is apparent in these comments is deeply unsettling. Remember two fundamental things. There are no victims in a homosexual act and homosexuals do not seek to limit or influence heterosexual relationships in any way. They only wish to conduct their own relationships without legal or social stigma. The signatories to the Manhattan convention clearly wish to restrict their freedom. You don’t want people to practice homosexuality, because you find it wrong for religious reasons, and you are going to use social, moral and possibly legal pressure to prevent people practicing it. The Taliban – who seem to crop up a lot in this debate – also seek to restrict a number of sexual and social practices because they find it wrong for religious reasons. This includes homosexuality of course, and adultery, but is extended to things such as women being educated, men shaving their beards, and even dancing and music. How shall we answer them? By saying our religion is right and theirs is wrong? I think we all know how that debate gets settled.markf
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Well, you know, if "homophiles" are "born that way," and thus may not be faulted or criticized for engaging in "homophilia," than simple logic, to say nothing of basic fairness -- and we all know how “liberals” love “fairness” -- would seen to dictate that we must likewise admit to the in-born nature of "homophobia," and so, no "homophobe" may be faulted or criticized for it. Gander, meet goose.Ilion
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
vjtorley, That is indeed a very fair minded assessment of it. He openly admits scientist don't really know whether or not it's genetic and concedes that it's probably a mixture of genetics and environmental factors (which could quite possibly be true, though i don't think we can say that whether it's probable or not yet). I'm rather amused that he doesn't really care about it and am rather amused at him deny free will of any kind, or so it seems he's saying so..Manable
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Hi everyone, I don't often recommend an article by Jerry Coyne, but on this occasion I will. Despite the fact that he's an atheist who denies free will, he has offered a remarkably fair-minded assessment of what scientists do and don't know about the causes of homosexual behavior in animals and humans, and what ethical conclusions (if any) can be drawn from all this. Here is his article: Evolution, animals, and gay behavior . Enjoy!vjtorley
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
1 17 18 19 20 21

Leave a Reply