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
Thanks, Shogun. It needn't even be seen in terms of will it be legalized, but simply in terms of the logic of equal rights too all people. Proponents of the the view that gay marriage etc should be legalized etc, would say it's simply equal rights and they shouldn't have their rights restricted. Their sexuality should be allowed as well as those who are heterosexual. But then, Why not beastiality? Should their rights be restricted? Simply by following the logic you come to this conclusion. Though others may have something to say about my conclusion.Manable
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Manable, I also agree, and that is the point I was trying to make since my post # 9. If we drop our limits on what is defined as moral with regard to sexuality, then any form of perversion such as pedophilia and beastiality can be legalized using the same desensitizing tactics that vjtorley talked about. Some people may think that this is far-fetched because such things are not desirable YET. But if we go back maybe 20 years, even homosexuality was far less desirable and less accepted than it is today. All it takes is some time, lobbying activists, and moral people standing still. Also thanks for the link you posted. In my opinion, the last five paragraphs were the best:
To build on a metaphor offered by the biologist Johnjoe McFadden, looking for genes that encode our unique behaviors and the other products of our minds is like analyzing the strings of a violin or the keys of a piano in the hope of finding the Emperor Concerto. Indeed, the human genome can be thought of as the grandest of orchestras, with each of our approximately thirty thousand genes representing a unique instrument playing in the wondrous and massive concert that is molecular biology. Each instrument is essential, and each must be in tune to produce the proper (and highly sophisticated) musical sound. Likewise, genes are essential to the development of the brain, and must be "in tune" to produce functioning neurons and neurotransmitters. But this emphatically does not imply that genes make minds any more than a viola or a piccolo makes a sonata. For many of us, there is still another powerful reason, wholly apart from the mechanics of science, to reject the notion that DNA is the core substance of our humanity. It is the belief that a higher power must also play some role in who we are and what we become. Of course, some scientists and writers dismiss this spiritual notion as pure superstition. Thus Richard Dawkins has observed that "we are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make copies of the same DNA.... It is every living object's sole reason for living." Really? Is there nothing about being human that is different from being a bacterium or a slug? Can the study of genetics and molecular biology really account for the universal intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong common to all human cultures in all eras (though all of us have trouble acting on this knowledge)? Can it account for the unselfish form of love that the Greeks called agape? Can it account for the experience of feeling called to sacrifice for others even when our own DNA may be placed at risk? While evolutionary biologists proffer various explanations for human behaviors that undermine the efficient propagation of our genes, there is something about those claims that rings hollow to us. The notion that science alone holds all the secrets of our existence has become a religion of its own. The faith of Dawkins and others in biology seems even greater than the faith of the simple believer in God. Science is the proper way to understand the natural, of course; but science gives us no reason to deny that there are aspects of human identity that fall outside the sphere of nature, and hence outside the sphere of science. For most believers, God has no meaning unless God is more than nature. If God is more than nature, then studying the natural may never reveal the true mystery. In the end, we must acknowledge that we human beings have only scratched the surface of self-understanding. The structure of DNA does hold considerable interest for this line of inquiry; but it would be the purest form of hubris to take our rudimentary knowledge of our genetic code, craft theories about it with our puny minds, and declare that nature has once and for all trumped nurture and toppled God. This is the kind of arrogance that humans alone seem to possess, and that genes alone could never explain.
The beauty of these quotes is that they totally demolish the basis of Dawkins' materialistic thought. Also notice how zephyr, lartanner, and mikev did not provide any scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is natural and thus contradict what is mentioned in the above quotes by Francis Collions et al. All they did is provide subjective sentiment towards gays and disdain towards religious definitions of morality.Shogun
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Illion, thanks for the post. I was also trying other tags such as bold & italics. I know how to do it now.Shogun
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
vjtorley, It seems there is a mass misconception that genetics are the be-all and end-all. I've watched programs that state that 'much of our life is determined before we are born by our genetics', which is clearly not true. On top of this, I've had debates where people have asserted that people are 100% definitely born gay, and that scientific study has proven so, which, quite frankly, is another lie entertained by the media and by some scientists that have a reason to want this too be (i.e homosexual scientists who wish to give more evidence to justify their desires). I agree polygamy is a better analogy, but I do think the point I made is sound. I also agree that homosexual acts probably shouldn't be outlawed, though the debate around that I haven't looked at, admittedly.Manable
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Shogun "how do you quote someone else’s writing in your posts?" Like this: <blockquote> You type the less than sign, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit the Enter key [not necessary, but may be an aid to you as you compose]. Then you insert your slab of text. Then you hit Enter again [not necessary, but may be an aid to you as you compose]. Then you type the less than sign, then the forward slash, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit Enter again. </blockquote> And the end-result is this:
You type the less than sign, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit the Enter key [not necessary, but may be an aid to you as you compose]. Then you insert your slab of text. Then you hit Enter again [not necessary, but may be an aid to you as you compose]. Then you type the less than sign, then the forward slash, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit Enter again.
Ilion
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Manable (#22) Thank you for the link to the article by Francis Collins, Lowell Weiss and Kathy Hudson. I liked this part:
To be sure, scientists will find many behavioral factors in the genes. Researchers have long known that there is one extremely common genetic factor that confers at least a ten-fold increase in the propensity to exhibit criminally violent behavior. It is called the Y chromosome. No one has suggested that all those who possess this genetic marker--that is, all males--ought to be seen as lacking free will or inherently possessing criminal intent. More to the point, the case of the Y chromosome is an almost absurd extreme. In the vast majority of cases, genetic factors exert a much smaller influence on patterns of behavior and capability.
Re gay marriage, I think the appropriate legal analogy is to polygamy, not pedophilia. Re homosexual acts, I do not think that these should be outlawed. That does not make them right, of course.vjtorley
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
I completely agree, andrewjg and vjtorley, Pedophiles and any other form of sexuality should be given equal rights if homosexuality gets it as well. This clearly isn't happening, so why the difference? On a slightly unrelated note, an article discussing genetics and whether people are born with things like sexuality decided, check out this article: http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/heredityandhumanity0711.htm Manable
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Thanks alot vjtorley, I was having alot of trouble with quoting.
Shogun
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Hi Shogun (#19) Re quotations: I had the same problem once. Here's what you do. You type the less than sign, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit the Enter key. Then you insert your slab of text. Then you hit Enter again. Then you type the less than sign, then the forward slash, then the word blockquote, then the greater than sign, with no spaces between them. Then you hit Enter again. At least, that's how I do it.vjtorley
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
I have an off-topic question: how do you quote someone else's writing in your posts? Do I have to use or ''?Shogun
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
vjtorley @ #10 Thanks for your post. I understand your points clearly, and I was not intending on getting side-tracked into meaningless arguments. I was simply trying to satirize the way of thinking of the "alternative lifestyles" lobby that you talked about, and how if immoral behaviors become recognized as legitimate rights, then you can expect more of that because the boundaries of what we define as moral are melting slowly due to the desensitizing agenda. And I also wanted to poke fun at their semantic euphemism that turned sexual perversions into sexual "diversity".Shogun
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
zephyr I'd just like to respond to some of your points, as you appear to be under a misapprehension about the purpose of this thread. 1. I do not think of gay people as being more sinful than I am. Neither did the authors of the Manhattan Declaration. Look at what they wrote: "We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives." 2. As a Christian, I do believe that gay sex is spiritually toxic. (For that matter, certain practices between heterosexual couples are spiritually toxic, too.) I also believe Christians should warn gay people of the real spiritual dangers of gay sex. If we didn't, we'd be lacking in charity. Who is your real friend: someone who warns you of danger, or someone who doesn't warn you, because he/she doesn't want to hurt your feelings? 3. There are, however, many things people do which are spiritually toxic, so none of us should sit in judgment on gays. We should always remember the words of Christ: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3). 4. I also realize that asking gay people to lead a life of complete chastity is a pretty big ask. It's not easy, and I'm not going to throw stones at those who try and sometimes fail. Sometimes there is only one right thing to do, and it's very, very hard. 5. "Innately immoral" is a contradiction in terms. Immorality is a choice. Homosexuals are not innately immoral, because nobody can be. 6. I do not regard gay people as my enemies. Most of the ones I've met have been genuinely nice people, and I don't think I've ever met any whom I would describe as evil. 7. However, I do regard activists (straight or gay) who seek to destroy the institution of marriage as my enemies, because I know that if marriage collapses, so does society. And I don't care what the sexual orientation of these activists is. Most of the damage, incidentally, is being done by "straight" people - e.g. the zealous (and probably married) schoolteacher who tells her students that all lifestyles are morally equivalent, that nobody should make value judgments about other people's choices, and that the practice of monogamy is a relic of the past. I believe that anyone who is attempting to undermine marriage should be resisted, tooth and nail. 8. I regard people who seek to destroy the institution of marriage as a much greater threat to society than the stupid little Taliban. Bombs on planes are nasty, but they don't cause a society to collapse. And let's face it, your chances of being blown to bits on a plane are practically zip - just like they were back in the nineties. We've wised up to the terrorists' tricks, and we've learned not to let our guard down. If the fabric of our society crumbles, it won't be because of terrorism; it will be because of self-inflicted damage. 9. Eradicating the very idea of monogamy will definitely result in the destruction of the institution of marriage. This will inevitably happen if we legalize gay marriage, because the vast majority of gay couples are not monogamous. If you want to see the evidence for that assertion of mine, please read the article, Open Monogamy by writer and attorney Mary Rice Hasson. It's pretty devastating. Some gays may claim to practice "emotional monogamy" (i.e. it's OK to have an occasional affair, so long as you don't get emotionally involved) but that is not the same thing as real monogamy. (Think about it: what wife would tolerate that rationale from a philandering husband? "It's OK, honey, I cheat but I never get emotionally involved.") If we legalize gay marriage, then what we are basically saying that monogamy is not an essential feature of marriage. In which case, I'd ask: what is? Openness to procreation is no longer a defining feature of marriage; monogamy is on the way out; and life-long permanence ("Till death do us part") is already gone. What is left of the concept of marriage? Nothing. For those who are interested, here are some excerpts from Mary Rice Hasson's article:
The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had "sex agreements" that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous... A 2010 study [see http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a918505146 ] from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship. How's that, again? The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the "monogamous" norm for gay couples. "All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating." Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as "cheating" as long as it was "compartmentaliz[ed]", which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants' ability to manage sex outside the relationship." Where does that leave us? Using the conservative figures from the Gay Couples Study, at least half of gay relationships don’t accept monogamy. But those that do, probably mean gay-style monogamy, which allows outside sex as long as it is "open" and any emotional attachment is to the committed partner. The gay relationship model, then, allows each partner to pursue as much sex with as many people as desired, as long as the outside relationships are "safe," emotionally detached, and transparent. Think of the gay narrative, expressed in news stories, TV interviews, and court documents, that movingly tell of gay couples who have been "together" for 10, 15, 20 years and want to be married, just like straight couples. The heterosexual frame of reference assumes that, for gay couples, committed and long-term relationships embrace sexual exclusivity, the norm for opposite-sex couples. And surveys that show growing popular support for same-sex marriage rely on that same public misperception. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Readers might also like to have a look at this article in Psychology Today (September 16, 2008), whose author is quite sympathetic towards "open marriages" and even thinks we can learn something from them:
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships. He makes it clear that whatever you decide as a couple you should be up front, direct and honest about what the contract of your relationship is on both sides. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
I expect some readers will remind me that married heterosexual couples also cheat. Some do; but according to the above-cited article by Mary Hasson, "just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable." Not all heterosexual couples keep their marriage vows; but at least they intend to when they make them, and (by an overwhelming margin) they still regard them as morally binding, even if they do cheat. 10. There is no good legal reason for legalizing gay marriage but not polygamy, and no-one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever proposed one. I think it's fair to say that if the former is legalized, the latter will eventually be legalized, too. 11. The social consequences of legalizing gay marriage will be huge. Children in public schools will be told that "emotional monogamy" (it's OK to cheat so long as you don't get emotionally involved) is just as valid as sexually exclusive monogamy. When these kids grow up, the attitudes they have imbibed at school will then affect their behavior as heterosexual married couples. Don't take it from me. Here's what Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling book, "It's Not You, It's Biology," had to say in a recent interview (New York Times, January 28, 2010) (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1 ):
"The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust," Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said. "The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight," he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. "If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages." (Emphases mine - VJT.)
If our kids are educated to think in this "new" way, then monogamy will become a forgotten practice within 50 years. That is something we need to fight. Social attitudes change, and they can change surprisingly quickly over the course of time. 12. I would therefore regard as an "enemy" any activist (straight or gay) who wishes to replace the ideal of monogamous marriage with a watered-down version of "open marriage." The latter is not the real McCoy, and it never will be. 13. In an article in Jewish World Review (March 9, 2004), entitled 'Gay marriage' confusions, the economist, social critic and political thinker Thomas Sowell penned the following words, which get right to the heart of what is wrong with gay marriage:
Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business - and that government has an obligation to give its approval... The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species? Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
14. I would also regard bureaucrats (again, predominantly "straight" people) who try to regulate what kind of moral instruction a parent should give to his/her children as "enemies." I wrote above about the case in the UK of a Christian couple being denied the right to adopt children because of their beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality. The Christian Legal Centre, commenting on the case, said:
'The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance. 'It may not be long before local authorities decide that Christians cannot look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society, simply because they disapprove of homosexuality.'
I then argued that it wouldn't be long before natural parents are quizzed about the same thing. I predicted that birth mothers would one day be refused the right to take their baby home unless they gave the "correct" answers to the social worker who quizzes them about what they would do if their child turned out to be gay. Now this would be a clearcut case of bureaucrats dictating values to parents. In response, I would say that the only values that governments have the right to ram down our throats are those of non-violence and the importance of fulfilling your duty to society. What a parent privately thinks, or teaches his/her child to think, is none of the government's business, as long as that parent does not incite his/her child to commit acts of violence or intimidation. 15. I found it very odd that the petition launched by Change.org linked the "gay rights" cause with the "pro-choice" cause, as I have personally known gays who were strongly pro-life. 16. I totally agree with you that homosexuality does not inevitably lead to pedophilia or its tolerance. I would however question your claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally likely to molest children. We don't have enough data to answer that question definitively, and I've seen claims and counter-claims in the literature. Even if it were true (as some claim) that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, it would not follow that most homosexuals do so; nor would it follow that homosexuals who don't molest children are wicked people. That's why I urged above that homosexuality and pedophilia should be treated as separate issues. 17. You ask: "And this has what to do with design in nature exactly?" Ask yourself this. Would a society which lets bureaucrats dictate the values that parents teach their children, and which lets teachers subvert the institution of marriage, be likely to let these parents teach their children that the God of the Bible (which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and which condemns homosexual acts) is the Designer of nature, and that it was He who made the first living cell? I think not. We at Uncommon Descent are against any form of thought control.vjtorley
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Two points 1. As vjtorley points out it is important to fight the right battles, i.e. to keep the broadview. To a liberal there is no end game for what freedom is. In other words freedom is the right to do anything I want and to have others accept it not matter the impact (provided I am not directly harming another). Thus it is not possible to entirely eliminate the likelihood that bestiality and pedophilia will be "rights" that will be sought in the future. How far in the future remains to be seen. 2. The lack of reason in Apple's decision to pull the app is what boggles my mind. You get a petition from one group with one viewpoint, you do not weight its claims against the actual content of something you previously declared as acceptable. You simply pull the application without reason or justification. Apple may be a tremendous innovator but poor mediator. If they can't make well reasoned decisions they should be in the business they are in.wstack9
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
zephyr@ll I agree with mikevd and LarTanner, their objections have not been refuted I am not sure I understand how their objections can be taken seriously. They would have us live in a society where all views and behaviours are off limits i.e. no one can say anything against them. 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 hope you can see the difference. I believe as deric has pointed out we are all entitled to share our views, but one cannot say your view if off limits if it extends outside yourself. In the first instance that view violates itself and when that happens society will crumble and become hedonistic and narcissistic in nature. Please understand that I am not saying a society which views homosexuality as being as legitimate as hetrosexuality does this, I am saying one that does not allow individuals to criticise it does because of the means of opposing dissent.andrewjg
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
of related note: My Question for P.Z. Myers: What Endows a Human Being With the Right to Life? - Michael Egnor http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/my_question_for_pz_myers_what_041101.htmlbornagain77
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Isn't it amazing that in the so-called "enlightend society" of today support for the protection of the unborn and the sanctity of human life is seen as "violence" against the rights of women. How distorted a piece of thinking is that?deric davidson
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
Apple has caved to the threats of the homosexual lobby. Reminiscent of threats by some Muslims regarding the publication of cartoon images of Muhammad. In doing so Apple shows it supports attacks by the homosexual lobby on the free speech rights of those who disagree with their life style practices and agenda, even if criticisms are measured and non-violent in content. The rights of one group cannot be achieved by suppressing the rights of another group. And before I get the expected rebuff "it works both ways" let me point out that I don't see the Manhattan Declaration suppressing the free speech of homosexuals to argue their case for "normalizing" homosexual behaviour in society. The MD is equally entitled to lobby its objections in a free, democratic society surely?deric davidson
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
The Real Reason God Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5325867/ Ezekiel 16 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Ybornagain77
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
I agree with mikevd and LarTanner, their objections have not been refuted, despite the usual predictable defenses. On the contrary Bourne's heated and over-the-top response only proves the point mikevd and LarTanner were making. And then we have Shogun bringing in peodophilia. As if homosexuality inevitably leads to peodophilia or its tolerance. If that isn't bigoted and absurd scare-mongering I don't know what is. Heterosexuals are as likely to be peodophiles as homosexuals. No one group can be singled out for blame here, unless one is seriously prejudiced. And then vjtorley speaks of the tactics to be employed against the enemy, again and again, the word he uses is "enemy". Enemy is an identical term employed for you know, the very real enemies we have like the Taliban and other jihadists like Al-Queida. vjtorley thus uses the same terminology to describe those whose political and social agendas we may not agree with as all decent Westerners use to describe those who incinerated thousands of Americans on 9-11, carry out honour killings on women and girls and the killings of apostates and terrorist bombings and the like. Oh and they execute homosexuals too. Using the word "enemy", it reminds me of Obama using the identical word to describe anybody opposing his agenda. Let's add gasoline to the fires already raging and intensify the already extreme polarities in the Western political sphere, shall we? One thinks of Orwell's Animal Farm 'all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others'. That is, 'we are all sinners but some of us are more sinful than others'. This is simply disingenuous and contradictory - we are all sinners, but homosexuals are innately immoral and the rest of us aren't innately immoral because of our heterosexuality. Or to put it another way, this is a reworking and rehash of the 'hate the sin and not the sinner' mantra, which is equally disingenuous at best and is likewise applied rather excessively and selectively to homosexuality. And this has what to do with design in nature exactly?zephyr
December 4, 2010
December
12
Dec
4
04
2010
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Tactics we need to keep in mind: 1. Always remember who your real enemy is. In this case, it's a highly organized "alternative lifestyles" lobby, whose members include both straight and gay people. Gay people as such are not the enemy; most of them just want to be left alone. 2. Fight the important battles; don't get side-tracked into ones that don't count. 3. Understand what your enemy's long-range objective is. 4. If you can think if some tactic that would defeat your enemy, put yourself in their shoes and say, "Now, how would I get around that?" And then think of a tactic for defeating that counter-tactic. 5. Always be one step ahead of your enemy. 6. Always make sure that you know your enemy's arguments better than he knows them. Only then can you defeat them. That means reading your enemy's literature, again and again. --------------- Some thoughts: 1. Borne's comment (#5), while somewhat harshly worded at times, was correct about one very important thing: there is an ongoing campaign to desensitize America (and the Western world, in general) to homosexual sex. And it has largely worked. I was interested to read the reviews of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Masden. Here is a brief extract from one review:
Before I write, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "In 1987 Kirk partnered with Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill") to write an essay, The Overhauling of Straight America, which was published in Guide Magazine. They argued that gays must portray themselves in a positive way to straight America, and that the main aim of making homosexuality acceptable could be achieved by getting Americans "to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders". Then "your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won." This book was a real eye-opener for me. I found it reminiscent of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'. From the book flap: "Dismissing the movement's outworn techniques in favor of carefully calculated public relations propaganda, AFTER THE BALL unveils the key psychological principles and national strategies that gays must follow..." "At the same time, Kirk and Madsen propose a clear-eyed agenda to reform gay culture..." To sum up the book: Two Harvard-educated intellectuals, one of which worked in Advertising on Madison Avenue, devised an agenda, to use propaganda and turn the tide of America's disregard and ambivalence for homosexuality by 180 degrees.
The enemy here is a PR machine. It is not gay people, and we should always keep that in mind. 2. I don't see any campaign on the horizon to normalize bestiality, if only because practically nobody finds it desirable. That's a battle we don't need to fight. For the foreseeable future, I doubt whether there is any real danger of pedophilia being legalized, if we are talking about children as opposed to teenagers. I find it very suspicious, however, that recently, we are being exposed to a steady drip-drip of stories in the media about teachers (of both sexes) behaving badly with their students. I have to ask myself if there is an agenda at work here, and whether we are being set up to regard this as normal. Logically, I suppose it follows that if you regard a 12-year-old as old enough to get birth control without informing his/her parents, then you must regard that 12-year-old as mature enough to choose his/her sexual partner. And if you were consistent, you'd have to say that this partner might be a teenager or adult. Now that's a line of thinking we need to fight, tooth and branch. But it has nothing to do with "gay rights" per se. 3. Speaking of which, "gay rights" is really a terrible misnomer. There are no gay rights or straight rights; there are only human rights. The exercise of certain rights, however, requires a certain level of maturity (e.g. the right to vote) and/or a certain unique kind of commitment (e.g. the right to marry). 4. It's naive to think that because gays can't reproduce, the influence of the "gay lobby" can be contained. First, they can resort to artificial techniques such as IVF and (one day) cloning. Second, there's already a case in the UK of a Christian couple being denied the right to adopt children because of their beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality. They were asked what they would do if their child told them that he was gay. As I pointed out in my previous post, it won't be long before natural parents are quizzed about the same thing. (After all, the argument will go, if adopted children have the right to be brought up in a bigotry-free environment, don't all children?) In 20 years or less, birth mothers will be refused the right to take their baby home unless they give the "correct" answers to the social worker who quizzes them about what they would do if their child turned out to be gay. This is a battle we need to fight. This will happen. 5. Fighting means reading the literature, infiltrating groups and even being prepared to act as an agent provocateur, if necessary.vjtorley
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
The funny thing (no pun intended) is that Apple, via its iTunes store, has classified "Expelled" as a comedy, despite numerous reviewers pointing out that it is a serious documentary.DaveW
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Borne, I agree with you on the point you made regarding pedophilia. Just give it few more years, and humanists will convince the masses that pedophilia is also "genetic" and is not by choice. And who knows, give it some more years and even beastiality will be recognized as "genetic". Then we will be seeing the 'pedo & beastie' parades all over the streets. Oh and let us not forget the semantic euphemism; they will be known as kid-lovers & animal-lovers. It's not that far-fetched actually, what is the difference between a pedophile man molesting a young boy and a grown gay man having intercourse with another man? It's only the age difference!! But in both cases we see attraction to the same sex, so why is latter "genetic" and the former not? I think it is the pedophiles... sorry, the kid-lovers fault for not following the same propaganda & lobbying campaigns alongside the gays, otherwise they would've been legal by now. Also beastiality should be legal too, why not? If humanists say that homosexuality is natural because we see animals do it, then we can use the same logic to conclude that sexually crossing species boundaries is also natural. Afterall, how did we get the mule if it wasn't for a cross-breeding between a horse & a donkey. So why should humanists limit human sexuality to our species only? So let us also recognize the beas... I mean animal-lovers as "genetic" and not by choice.Shogun
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
mikev6,
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.
The difference is that the "group" was defined by the immoral conduct itself, and not some larger parameter. Thus, where your example would be bigoted, it is not analogous to the former as you imply.Brent
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Bourne, with all due respect, I don't see the love of the Manhattan Declaration in your response to the issue. Why focus on bedroom practices? All the things you mention are part of heterosexual life too -- and depending on how you define sodomy, a pretty frequent part. :-)QuiteID
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
mikev6 Thank you for your post. You write:
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?
Let's have a look at what the Manhattan Declaration itself says:
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.
The Declaration says that homosexual conduct is immoral, not that homosexuals are immoral per se. There are people who are homosexual by orientation but who nobly resist the temptation to engage in homosexual conduct. 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. There are many kinds of immoral sexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is one kind; adultery is another; and so on. Everyone has his or her own cross to carry in life, and almost no-one is without fault when it comes to sexual sin. Finally, we must beware of the slide in argumentation from "not chosen" to "natural." From the fact that a homosexual orientation is not chosen, it does not follow that it is natural, let alone good.vjtorley
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
The whole "gay" activist political movement disgusts me to the very core as do the perverse sexual practices of "gays" - like golden showers, fisting, sodomy and worse. These people are following the marketing/propaganda plan laid out clearly by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the book "After the Ball is Over:How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays" In 1988, about 175 leading gay-rights activists met in Warrenton, Virginia where Kirk and Madsen took the strategic ideas of that meeting and wrote the book. Their goal was to maximize sympathy and minimize fear based on a program of propaganda based on principles of psychology and marketing. This plan uses an "Overton Window" technique to slowly but surely seduce Americans into accepting homosexuality as normal. They also use common propaganda and brain washing techniques worthy of Goebbels. Many euphemisms were created to help them along; -Change the uncouth 'homosexual' to "gay" -Use the word "rights" instead of wants to make all opponents look like rights violators and them look like poor victims ...
Through a detailed strategy including “desensitization” (attitudinal manipulation through constant repetition), “jamming” (in which ruthless intimidation tactics are used to silence dissenting expression), and other powerful tactics, they have been able to shape public opinion. In After the Ball, the authors wrote: “We mean the conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.”
The quote is from the Book "The Marketing of Evil" by Daivd Kupelian. Yes it is a conspiracy but a very open and obvious one, yet of which the larger public has never been aware of. Thus today we have these people subverting whole sectors of society to their personal agenda to make converts out of you, your wife, your children and friends. Their goal is not mere acceptance but, seeing how they cannot reproduce themselves, converting you to the homo life style so they can use and abuse you which is what its really all about anyway. Has nothing to do with rights anymore than pedophiles or necrophiles ought to have equal or special rights. Its sick and America, through highly duped and stupid mass media and political lobbyists pretending to be victims and "normal", has bought into the lie big time. It has never been normal - either for humans or animals and the proof of that is precisely that they cannot reproduce naturally. If the world turned "gay" today the race would be extinct in less than a century. Think about that as "normal". It ain't so Joe. Nature itself says so. If it were natural they would reproduce rather than having to convert. We are not suggesting violence or hatred, just rationality based truth. There is not a sane medical doctor in the country that would claim that homosexuality is "normal". It isn't and virtually all cultures throughout history have viewed it so -that is while they remained sane. In Holland there is already a pedophile politically party - all nice and legal claimed the judge; As long as they, at this time, don't practice it! Wait a few more years of Overtone Window style propaganda and media "marketing" (brainwashing) and coercion and that will change too. Such folly is itself an abomination.Borne
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
It is extraordinary how we live in an age where speaking up against sins, even in a polite manner, gets you labeled as a bigot by humanists who have no qualms about accepting "sins" as "rights" and have given themselves the authority to decide on matters of morality and what is better for humanity. Two points need to be made clear in case the article was not clear enough already: First, speaking up against the sinful acts of others does not mean that you are being hateful, condescending, or anti-"group". It simply means, as andrewjg pointed out, a concern towards the well being of fellow humans. Second, there is a clear agenda operating behind the scenes for such atheist/anti-religion groups. They seem to be the ones who are mostly hateful and condescending towards anything remotely related to religion. It is a rather disgrace that change.org lied to its readers in the way they misrepresented the Manhattan Declaration.Shogun
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; ....there’s no condescens­ion here?DiEb
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
LarTanner@2 “We” don’t get to define “them” as sinners–even if we “love” them. Why not? We are all sinners. We each have ideas about what constitutes a sin which may or may not correspond with reality. But each is free to express their view as to what thoughts, actions and behaviours are sinful, immoral, evil, bad, good, etc in accordance with our view of reality. In fact to deny this right is to take away part of our humanity. We human being are community and if we remain silent we isolate and impoverish our relations. For example we rightly state that masochism is harmful to oneself both physically and psychologically whether or not it is caused in part or in full by our genes. We rightly recommend that even if they can't control the urge that they stop the behaviour. Remaining silent would be to show an indifference to the well being of our fellow man which impoverishes our human nature. If we believe that a behaviour is outside the will of God then our humanity demands that we bring it to their attention even if we acknowledge their right to excersize their free will.andrewjg
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”
There is indeed condescension. How about if "we" let "them" speak for themselves? "We" don't get to define "them" as sinners--even if we "love" them.LarTanner
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
1 18 19 20 21

Leave a Reply