Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

_{Vincent Torley

December 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

QI, explicit is explicit, and I was explicit there, in addition to being implicit in a lot of other places: e.g. protecting life from conception to natural death. And there is a basic duty of care not to make slanderous false accusations; which happened above in ever increasing degree from SAR, plainly aiming to derail, poison and spoil the thread of discussion. Beyond that, I think you need to note that the demonisation strategy now seems to be a standard resort out there for people of her evidently evolutionary materialistic, radically relativist ilk. As for writing style, I admit to sometimes being convoluted, and will endeavour to try to reduce the incidence. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

F/N: For those who need to know, an open system cannot be censored. So, Google will not be able to carry out the sort of faith-breaking stunt Apple has done.
True. I would have thought, though, that their recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, and extension of benefits to those partnerships equal to what is offered to traditionally married employees, would be viewed as yet another objectionable step in the efforts to mainstream the homosexualist agenda.San Antonio Rose_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

F/N: For those who need to know, an open system cannot be censored. So, Google will not be able to carry out the sort of faith-breaking stunt Apple has done.kairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the news: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/13/god-and-man-at-columbia Hey--what's so bad about incest between a Columbia professor and his adult daughter? God is dead, right? Who are we to say they can't do as they please?allanius_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

I am sure you have the best of intentions, kairosfocus, but your writing is so bristling with cross-references that it's hard to read. Your "explicit" repudiation of the criminalization of homosexuality has to be dug out of your writing. The fact is that when you feel offended, as you often do, your writing becomes even more cross-referential than usual. I'm saying this as someone who is sympathetic to your perspective (though who has a different view vis-a-vis the state and its proper role in moral correction).QuiteID_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

It is clear that Apple [which I gather is highly rated by homosexualists as "friendly to gays"] has broken trust with its many supporters over the years, who have been willing to adhere to a closed computer system, trusting the resulting monopoly power would not be abused.
You might not want to look into the policies of Google (owner of Android, your suggested alternative) towards gays. I guarantee you won't like what you find.San Antonio Rose_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

QI: Please look at 449, where it is very plain in indented point II to MF that it is the ABC that I EXPLICITLY spoke of. Subsequently I linked this document that gives the evidence you will not read in your usual news and views pieces on the subject. There is no excuse whatsoever for SAR's slanderous word twisting and pushing words into my mouth. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I apologise for having to turn aside to deal with insistent, outrageous slander. We must not allow it to succeed at what it aims to do --poison the thread. For, this thread is a key breakthrough on the side of the design issue that is least well handled (in part due to atmosphere poisoning by cynical secularist propagandists who take in the likes of a SAR in their tangled webs of lies and slanders through the trifecta fallacy of distraction, distortion and demonisation). Namely, the implications of origins science schools of thought and related worldviews for society and policy. So, let us draw out some lessons and findings, in steps: 1 --> 2,300 years ago, in his final dialogue, The Laws, Bk X, Plato pointed out that evolutionary materialistic views try to pose as the latest and greatest findings of scholarship, asserting that we can successfully view the cosmos, life within it and us, as the product of chance and necessity [what he meant by phusis, nature]. 2 --> As an immediate consequence, it reduces especially moral knowledge to radical relativism, so that the highest right is might, and manipulation. 3 --> As a consequence, it feeds a coterie of ruthless, amoral nihilists who seek power by sowing discord and seizing power, which they then use tyrannically. 4 --> This has been played out any number of times since, and especially in the past 100 years, with over 100 million victims of secularist state tyranny. 5 --> The occasion for this thread was an attempt by Apple computer, responding to a petition by what appear to be homosexualists, to censor an iPAD application to support a Declaration of Christian principles that addresses three majopr consequences of the rising dominance of secularist, evolutionary materialist amorality in our day:
I: protection of life from conception to natural death, II: Protection and restoration of marriage based on the permanent covenantal commitment of man and woman, given the complementarity of the sexes, as the foundation for sound procreation and child nurture, which are in turn a basis for stable community, III: A stout stance for freedom of conscience, expression and religion in the face of the Yogyakarta agenda of homosexualisation by force of unjust law.
6 --> It is clear that Apple [which I gather is highly rated by homosexualists as "friendly to gays"] has broken trust with its many supporters over the years, who have been willing to adhere to a closed computer system, trusting the resulting monopoly power would not be abused. 7 --> So, immediately, in defence of our liberty, we must now determine to shift our information and Communication technology platforms to open systems, such as Android, Linux, and to a lesser extent Windows. Censors must learn a sharp lesson, the only one they will listen to: pain. (For me, I will never recommend or personally purchase an Apple system again. And I say that with pain, for I cut my computing eye-teeth on a Mac. PC's pale by contrast, but they work well enough that I can say goodbye Apple. You broke faith.) 8 --> For education technology, especially 3rd world [and that is a particular interest of mine] I suggest we need to look to the OLPC project and the Sugar user interface, especially if they are able to come close to the US$ 75 for the XO-3. 9 --> The matter goes deeper, however; for the issue is evolutionary materialist secularism and amorality, thence relativism and the anti-ethics of might makes right. 10 --> We saw above that MF, a trained philosopher, was simply unable to cogently address the gap between the subjectivist, radically relativist views of materialism -- there is no is in that system of chance and necessity acting on matter and energy that can ground ought -- and the fact that by universal consensus of our demand for fairness, we find ourselves to be morally governed creatures. 10 --> That is, we have reason to accept that, objectively, ought is real, we are morally obligated; thence we really have rights; starting with the right to life and liberty in a community manifesting the civil peace of justice. 11 --> From this, we see that here MUST be an IS that grounds ought. That is, if there is moral law, there must be a Moral Lawgiver. 12 --> The only credible candidate for such a Lawgiver is a necessary being responsible for our contingent world, i.e. a Creator who as to his inherent nature and character is morally good. 13 --> That way, is and ought cannot be severed, destroying the Euthyphro dilemma, so called. 14 --> When we look at our cosmos, at life in it, and at ourselves,we see a separate, supportive line of evidence: there is strong empirical evidence that the cosmos and life are best understood as designed. 15 --> So strong is this evidence, that the only way the evolutionary materialists have been able to deflect its force is by subtly imposing evolutionary materialism as an a priori assumption of origins science by using the fallacious premise of methodological naturalism. 16 --> Thus,they have massively begged the question and unfortunately have too often resorted to abuse of institutional power, slander and censorship or even expulsion of dissenters to enforce it. 17 --> Which sounds all too familiar. 18 --> In the above thread, a considerable body of key evidence has been marshalled, on the attempted homosexualisation of marriate, and its nub is this: under the impact of secularism and associated hedonism and sensualism,marrage and family have been in increasing trouble in our civilisation. 19 --> What we may best call the Yogyakarta homosexualist agenda now seeks to finish the job, by abusing the power of national and international law to radically redefine marriage and suppress dissent on the subject. 20 --> If successful this will over the next 20 - 40 years destabilise family life and fatally undermine the rights of dissent and conscience, leading to widespread social chaos, violence and tyranny, which the radical secularists are confident they will dominate. 21 --> VJT projects the effective extinction of our civilisation's traditional conscience, the church, within 20 - 30 years in Europe, and 50 - 70 years in North America. he projects that the dependence of Africa will enmesh it in the mess -- probably on the analogy of how Western AIDS activists have seized control of the international efforts and abused their power to suppressed the success of he ABC strategy of Uganda, and have set out on using the HIV epidemic to export the radicalisation of sexuality to that continent. 22 --> Let us be plain: The condom strategy failure is "not news," the contrasting success of ABC is denied and dismissed, and Uganda's over-reaction to aggressive homosexuals acting out the myth that hey can be cured by forcing themselves on young boys, has been headlined to demonise them. (Never mind the millions of lives at stake. I need not underscore the potential implications for a continent full of untapped resources ripe for the grabbing if it is depopulated and rendered hopelessly dependent . . . ) 23 --> He suggests that the future bases for the church will be Russia, China and Korea. 24 --> I differ with him: Russia is dying. Korea is about 100 millions altogether, if the North can be rescued from the Kims. 25 --> China is 1 1/4 billions and rising, and the church is moving past 10% and heading for the 20 - 30% cultural tipping point that transformed Rome and Europe, and Korea. Already the ~ 100 million Chinese Christians are setting out on sending out 100,000 as missionaries. 26 -->I think the radical Islamists will over-reach, and meet disaster in the Middle East and Europe. It will be a wild, bloody ride, but in the end, it is Prester John II 27 --> And, as for Africa, there is an underestimated force: the Caribbean. Relatively prosperous and peaceful with a strong base for the church. 28 --> With the history that in 1843 100 Jamaican Baptist -- look up George Liele (and he is a key figure for the African American and Cherokee churches too) -- ex-slave missionaries went to West Africa, sparking the vibrant churches there that stopped Islam cold. 29 --> So, the strategic opening is there for the whole 10/40 Window of poverty, violence and oppression. For it so happens that the peoples of the Caribbean descend from those nations, from West Africa through the Middle East, India, China, Java and Japan. 30 --> So, the dynamic is that a new age of reformation is upon us. Western culture as we know it is plainly mortally wounded and vulnerable to falling into the natural state of cultures: decadence, chaos, poverty, famine, disease, war and oppression. 31 --> With maybe nuke and or bio-war to trigger the third major western dark age, if things don't get real serious with Iran in time to stop what the mullahs and their cat's paws (Ahmadinejad and co) would do. ______________ But these are the trends. Like pie crusts, trends are made to be broken, if we will heed our prophets and turn to reformation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, you meant 494, not 449, hence SAR's confusion. And in 494, your repudiation is not that explicit -- you merely write that "Uganda’s behaviour here has been unwarrantedly harsh, thus wrong," a rather vague assertion in the midst of describing a context in some detail. It's like you're saying "yes they're wrong BUT . . ." -- it's hard to clarify just what they're wrong about and how wrong they could be given that the qualifications and/or context overwhelm the admission that they're wrong. A general observation: When you take offense, as you often do, to somebody else's characterization, your writing can be hard to follow. It tends to draw many threads of thought into a single whole, and I for one, who consider myself a careful reader, find myself somewhat at sea.QuiteID_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

KF:
You still try to link me to something I have explicitly repudiated; though I have given context that should help us understand why the Ugandans are likely to over-react.
I have re-read comment 449 and I don't see where you repudiated that "relevant, particularly dangerous or communicable disease vector sexual practices should be illegal" but I accept your latest comment as a specific repudiation of efforts to criminalize homosexuality or homosexual behavior. And I apologize for assuming you believed otherwise.
Do you realise what insistently demonising those who are on the other side of an issue does tot he civil society that is a precondition of democracy?
Yes, I have been too judgmental. Being judgmental is bad.San Antonio Rose_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

SAR: Frankly, your brazenness and insistence on slander astound me. In 449 above I explicitly discussed the ABC initiative in Uganda, and in my earlier response I linked a 20 pp document on the success. You still try to link me to something I have explicitly repudiated; though I have given context that should help us understand why the Ugandans are likely to over-react. Frankly, your onward behaviour disgusts me. Have the decency to be ashamed and stop. Do you realise what insistently demonising those who are on the other side of an issue does tot he civil society that is a precondition of democracy? Good day madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

SAR, you may have misunderstood (though kairosfocus has not been entirely clear). kairosfocus seems to be speaking of Uganda's success with the ABC program, which preceded the recent anti-gay movements in the country, rather than its laws against homosexuality. kairosfocus, is this the case? Were you not talking about criminalization but merely about the (UNESCO-approved!) AIDS prevention strategy known as ABC? And if so, do you have any thoughts about the recent moves in Uganda to legally punish homosexual sex? Thanks.QuiteID_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

KF
I cannot but remark on how SAR has yet again managed to slanderously twist words out of context and push words in my mouth that she MUST know do not belong there. Above, I spoke of how Uganda’s ABC approach to HIV contagion containment is significant as a way out: taking personal responsibility to abstain or be faithful first and formemost, using a condom is one is otherwise. SAR — desperate to demonise me as Alinsky’s wicked ghost bids her to do — cannot but try to twist this into the idea that I approve of sentencing homosexuals to gaol for their behaviour. This is utterly wicked, slanderous misbehaviour.
Fact 1: Current laws in Uganda criminalize homosexuality with punishment of 14 years in prison. Fact 2: You wrote the following in comment 449 (note the part I have bolded):
The more reasonable response is that relevant, particularly dangerous or communicable disease vector sexual practices should be illegal, restricted or strongly discouraged, with public education to explain why. (Anal intercourse, annilingus, and fellatio are particularly relevant here. Promiscuity, and anonymous multiple partner sexual behaviour in bath houses or the like — how those 50 to 1,000+ sex act partners per lifetime are racked up — should be also sharply restricted and enforced against where institutionalised in porn shops, bath houses and red light district streets or bordellos. As Uganda showed the way, the ABC principles can help with all of the above.)
Ah, I see I have read you slightly wrong and must apologize a second time. You would only criminalize homosexual sex to the extent it was unsafe sex. You may not approve of what they do behind closed doors, but as long as they are using condoms and other such precautions, no criminal sanctions apply, correct?
SAR, you cannot excuse slander up to and including falsely alleging support for murder, by saying that the one objecting is overly sensitive. SHAME ON YOU.
I apologized for that with no reserve in comment 482. What other act of contrition does your honor require, sir? The last word?San Antonio Rose_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: SAR, you cannot excuse slander up to and including falsely alleging support for murder, by saying that the one objecting is overly sensitive. SHAME ON YOU. F/N 3: MF, do you not see how you are aiding and abetting insistent slander, up to and including the sort of false allegation just noted? Have you no shame? [Or, is it that "might makes right," so "if you think you can get away with it, go for it"?]kairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

F/N to Moderators: I cannot but remark on how SAR has yet again managed to slanderously twist words out of context and push words in my mouth that she MUST know do not belong there. Above, I spoke of how Uganda's ABC approach to HIV contagion containment is significant as a way out: taking personal responsibility to abstain or be faithful first and formemost, using a condom is one is otherwise. SAR -- desperate to demonise me as Alinsky's wicked ghost bids her to do -- cannot but try to twist this into the idea that I approve of sentencing homosexuals to gaol for their behaviour. This is utterly wicked, slanderous misbehaviour. (And BTW, before we triumphalistically judge Uganda's harshness and demonise them -- and I think Uganda's behaviour here has been unwarrantedly harsh, thus wrong -- in responding to willful spreading of HIV by aggressive homosexuals [I think there is a deadly myth, similar to the one I knew of in my youth, that sex with a virgin would cure STDs], we need to realise that the 97 martyrs of Uganda, so pivotal to the Christianisation of that nation, were killed by an aggressively homosexualist king, who was demanding his "right" to his court boys bending down for his "use." On Christian convictions, they refused to bend over, and paid with their lives. A bit of the rest of the story you are not being told.)kairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Stephen We see here the corrosive effects of the imposition of evolutionary materialism, which reduces rigts to power games and manipulation. I see, too the effect of the poisonous, cynical manipulation by the likes of Kirk, Madsen et al: even while she is under investigation, SAR cannot stop slandering and even lying. (She has in hand a clear statement that rights obtain for all humans,and a clear statement that marriage is not and cannot be a right.) But, she cannot bring herself to acknowledge that those she objects to -- notice the issue is injected animosity, not questions of which view is more warranted -- are not he devils on the other side that Alinsky bids the manipulated to see. As to MF's sadly cynical rendering of support while ducking his own challenge as a trained philospher to ground the claim of "rights" and other moral claims on other than the subjective basis that boils down to might makes right, that is its own condemnation. We must note this for the future. Similarly,we must note that all he could say in response to VJT's summary, is that it is long. Yes, long enough to be a good book or thesis chapter, and pretty solid, every step of the way. And, the onlooker needs to see just how dangerous the imposed, a priori evolutionary materialism under false flag of science that we face really is, once we see its implications for people in society. Implications that were seen by Plato, 2,300 years ago in The Laws, Bk X: ________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Radical relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [Nietzsche's will to power and power based nihilistic amorality are not new, and are rooted in the imposition of evolutionary materialism], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [if justice and morality are just a matter of power games, then to the victors belong the spoils], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. [such nihilism leads to tyranny] >> ________________ We can hardly say we have not been warned in adequate time. The question is whether we can learn the lesson of Acts 27. (Or, are we doomed, once again, to the march of reckless folly in the face of manifest dangers; led by cynically calculated manipulators out for their own agenda, not the common good? [Let us not overlook that when the folly led to mortal peril, the ones who led the ship's company into bad decisions in Fair Havens, tried to bail out on them by further trickery, intending to abandon them to their death.]) We can hardly say that we have not been warned. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

SAR, you need to learn when to stop needling and insinuating.
And should try to be less sensitive. If you are going to play on the internet, you are going to need to put your big boy pants on. (j/k)
It should be obvious that I absolutely object to special so-called group rights so long as the group in question is smaller than the human race.
I guess that is as close as you'll come to agreeing that homosexuals are deserving of equal rights. Although, after you spoke approvingly of Uganda in comment 449, I decided to look up how they approach homosexuality. Apparently, current law has criminalized homosexuality with penalties up to 14 years in prison. So, I guess it is one step forward, two steps back with you. Mr. Torley, I guess you are gaveling the discussion so I will say that it was a gracious concession on your part to quote me in your closing statement and acknowledge that I accurately captured your position. Of course, I am still quite cross that you see this position as a virtue, but there is hope for you yet. Markf, if your son is every bit as intelligent and thoughtful as you, I would be honored to join your family. If you only have daughters, I would still be tempted to marry in, but only to annoy Upright Biped (*wink*). Merry Christmas everybody!San Antonio Rose_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

vj Quite right to draw a close to this. Your summary runs to nearly 6000 words - just under half the length of my MSc dissertation which took me 6 months to write. You will understand if I don't read it all! Vivid - thanks for your apology. It is always hard to do that - I know all too well. SAR - I would like you for a daughter-in-law. I wonder if anyone changed their mind about anything? Markmarkf_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

---SanAntonioRose: "StephenB was gracious enough to say that, except for the right to form a family, he believes that homosexuals are entitled to all the rights afforded to their fellow citizens. These rights may included some or all of the 28 rights laid out in the Yogyakarta document (depending on the particular country.) Could you please indicate whether you agree or disagree that homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights that there fellow citizens are entitled to? I really don’t understand you reluctance to answer what seems to be a rather simple question." Oh, my heavens. I support basic human rights for all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation. However, many of the so-called rights listed in that infamous Yogyakarta document, such as the right to state-funded sex changes, perverted descriptions of gender identity, and a number of other aggressive attempts to redefine human sexuality, are not basic rights at all. Please do not characterize my support for basic human rights as an endorsement for that horrible and perverted initiative.StephenB_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Thanks VJUpright BiPed_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

VJT: A very useful summing up. Appreciated. GEM of TKI PS: SAR, you need to learn when to stop needling and insinuating. It should be obvious that I absolutely object to special so-called group rights so long as the group in question is smaller than the human race. And, do I need to repeat, yet again: marriage is NOT -- cannot be -- a right (as it is not a binding moral obligation we may exert on others relative to our dignity as human beings and in light of our purpose as morally governed creatures), but is instead -- and has always been -- a permanent, covenantal agreement between man and woman in the primary context of the propagation and nurture of the race. That, at this stage you are still making remarks that are offensive and even slanderous in import speaks volumes, sad volumes. Not least, about the destructively poisonous, polarising impact of the cynically slanderous propaganda that to object to homosexualisation of marriage is tantamount to hatred of people who live with or struggle with same sex attractions and/or behaviour.kairosfocus_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Dr. Torley, "that’s all I wanted to say." That's all? :-)QuiteID_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Second, San Antonio Rose asked how the prohibition of homosexual marriages differs from the prohibition of inter-racial marriages, in former times. The answer should be obvious enough: the race of the two parties getting married is not, and never was, part of the legal definition of marriage. While I agree with you on this issue, this statement above is not exactly true. There have been Anti-miscegenation laws across many eras and cultures. Other than that minor correction, your comment was well thought out and logical.jon specter_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Android is coming along nicely and has an inherently open system. If you are suggesting people use Android products instead of Apple products to protest Apple's censorship of the Manhattan Declaration, you might want to think again. Android is owned by Google. Google not only provides health benefits to domestic partners of gay employees, they provide those employees with extra pay to apparently compensate them for higher taxes they pay vis-a-vis married employees. See herejon specter_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I'd like to make my concluding remarks on this thread. A few contributors have questioned the relevance of the Manhattan Declaration for a Web site serving the Intelligent Design community. That's a fair question. Let me just say that: (i) two previous threads on Uncommon Descent have discussed the Declaration; (ii) many believers in Intelligent Design believe that the Designer of life on earth was a Transcendent and Infinite Being who created the cosmos, and go on to identify this Being with the God of Judaism and Christianity; and (iii) the intention of this thread has been to show that adhering to the Judeo-Christian ethic – in particular, its defense of unborn human life and traditional marriage – does not entail being a hateful bigot, whatever Apple boss Stephen Jobs or the 7,700 people who petitioned him may happen to think. On the contrary, I showed that the signers of the Declaration affirmed the equality of all human beings and rejected all forms of bigotry. The defense of unborn human life and of traditional marriage were the two main themes of the Manhattan Declaration. If I have one big regret about this thread, it is that the tragedy of abortion, which kills an estimated 60 million unborn human beings around the world every year, was not discussed. I realize that to some people, it must seem completely absurd to regard an embryo or fetus as a human being with a right to life. But I would say that it is these people who are the true bigots in our society: they seek to deny human rights to people, simply because they are very small, very dependent or not yet sentient. None of these properties has any relevance to possessing human rights, as I have argued on my pro-life page. The rights-conferring property possessed by each and every unborn human being, from conception onwards, is that it is an embodied being, running a set of built-in programs that control its development into a mature, rational adult. Although it is totally dependent on the outside world for food, oxygen, warmth, love and support, it is still in charge of its own development, because the programs in its body tell it how to process all these things in its environment. Any entity that controls its own development into a rational adult, is morally equivalent to a rational adult. A zygote matters just as much as I do. For the most part, the discussion on this thread focused on marriage – in particular, whether "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and if so, why. I have defended the view that homosexuals cannot marry. However, this in no way undermines their dignity as human beings; we are all children of the same God. Rather, it says something about the nature of marriage. What, then, is a marriage? On the traditional (Judeo-Christian) view, marriage has four defining features: permanence, monogamy, exclusivity and respect for the good of procreation. In a nutshell: marriage is a lifelong, monogamous commitment made by one man and one woman who promise to have sexual relations only with each other, and who, whether they are fertile or not, respect the good of procreation as a vital aspect of their being. By its very nature, marriage is a commitment undertaken by both parties with the intention of staying together "until death do us part" – in other words, it must be a lifelong commitment. Additionally, marriage is a commitment which two people make, to the exclusion of all others. Marriage is therefore monogamous and exclusive. (Only that kind of relationship is suitable for the rearing of children.) Finally, both parties in a valid marriage have to respect the good of procreation, as a vital aspect of their being. What does that mean? At the very least, respecting the good of procreation entails refraining from deliberately sterilizing yourself. Thus procreation is not an essential part of each and every marriage, but respect for one's God-given procreative faculties is. Since only a man and a woman can engage in a procreative act when they make love, it follows that only a man and a woman can be said to respect the good of procreation. Hence on the Judeo-Christian view, only a man and a woman can get married. Various readers have suggested that science might one day allow gays and lesbians to procreate without the need for a donor egg or sperm, as the case may be. Even if that were to happen, however, it would still remain the case that the act of love between a man and a woman is a procreative act (on some occasions, at least), while a sexual act between homosexuals is inherently incapable of procreating new human life. As San Antonio Rose (who completely disagrees with the traditional Judeo-Christian teaching on homosexual acts) correctly paraphrased it: "it isn't enough that same sex couples could procreate, they must procreate by performing The Right Procreative Act." Precisely. And the right procreative act is an act of love which generates new human life. Artificially generating a new human life in a Petri dish in a laboratory is an ugly, mechanical, inhuman act, which divorces the act of love from the procreation of new life. That’s no way to make a baby. However, in our secular society, not everyone shares the Judeo-Christian view of marriage. There are many, sadly, who view procreation as an "optional extra" feature of marriage. Nevertheless, even among people who have no religious beliefs, the traditional view that marriage is a lifelong, monogamous and exclusive commitment is widespread: it is deeply entrenched in our society, and in almost every other human society. Of course, most societies allow divorce under certain exceptional circumstances (e.g. adultery), but that in no way negates the fact marriage is a commitment that must be undertaken by both partners with the intention of staying together for life. There are some societies that allow polygamy, but if we look around the world, most human beings live in societies that insist on monogamy. Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, each marriage is between a man and a woman. Finally, marital fidelity, which is expressed in the exclusive love between a man and a woman, is also an essential part of marriage in nearly all human societies. So how do homosexual marriages stack up, according to the three criteria I proposed above for a secular society? Lifelong partnerships appear to be the exception rather than the rule for gays and lesbians. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are usually short-lived. There are no statistics available yet for gay divorces, but the recently published National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) by Drs. Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos, which was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), bears out my point on the impermanence of homosexual and lesbian relationships. Since the 1980s, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) has been following and reporting on a cohort of planned lesbian families with children conceived through donor insemination. Raising a child would be a pretty powerful motive for staying together, you might think. Evidently not:
Remarkably, the authors report that the relationship-dissolution rate for the lesbian couples was 48% at the 10-year mark and 56% at the 17-year mark. (The average duration of the relationship prior to dissolution was 12 years.) When compared to the relationship-dissolution rates of the biological heterosexual sisters of the lesbians, the rate of relationship breakup is nearly double for the lesbians.
Let me add that homosexual relationships are often much shorter in duration. According to an article entitled, The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, by M. Xiridou; R. Geskus; J. de Wit; R. Coutinho and M Kretzschmar, in AIDS (2 May 2003; Volume 17, Issue 7, pp. 1029-1038), the mean duration of a steady homosexual partnership is about 1.5 years, for men under the age of 30. Men in a steady relationship had an average of 8 partners per year, while men in a casual relationship had an average of 22 partners per year. When one considers that the median number of sexual partners in a lifetime for the average heterosexual male is seven, and four for the average heterosexual female, as shown by a recent survey (based on data collected for the Center for Disease Control from 6,237 American adults, aged 20 to 59, from 1999 to 2002), it soon becomes apparent that something is very wrong with homosexual relationships. In comment #67 (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/#comment-368384 ) above, I provided detailed estimates from the literature, showing that the median number of lifetime sexual partners for gay men was about 400 in the 1970s; however, it is very difficult to come by contemporary statistics. (I wonder why! Could it be because it would make bad publicity for the gay movement?) Lifelong partnerships, then appear to be rare in the gay and lesbian community. What about the other two criteria: monogamy and sexual exclusivity? The main point that I've been concerned to argue in this thread is that sexually exclusive monogamy is worth defending, and that it should remain part of our legal definition of marriage. Any relationship that isn't monogamous and exclusive, doesn't deserve to be called a marriage, even in our secular society. The available evidence indicates that the vast majority of gay couples don't practice sexually exclusive monogamy. I'd like to quote from a recent article by Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., entitled "What is Marriage?" (December 8, 2010), and published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 . I would advise everyone on this thread to read this article. On page 278, the authors write:
Preliminary social science backs this up. In the 1980s, Professors David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, themselves in a romantic relationship, set out to disprove popular beliefs about gay partners' lack of adherence to sexual exclusivity. Of 156 gay couples that they surveyed, whose relationships had lasted from one to thirty-seven years, more than sixty percent had entered the relationship expecting sexual exclusivity, but not one couple stayed sexually exclusive longer than five years.102 Professors McWhirter and Mattison concluded: "The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals."103 Far from disproving popular beliefs, they confirmed them. (Emphasis mine – VJT.) 102. David P. McWhirter & Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, 252–53 (1984). 103. Id. at 3.
In my comments #20 (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/#comment-368323 ) and #339 (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/#comment-368746 ) above, I presented additional evidence that the vast majority of gay couples do not practice sexually exclusive monogamy, and that even when gays claim to be monogamous, what they really mean is "emotional monogamy": it's OK to have an occasional affair, so long as you don't get emotionally involved. The article I cited by writer and attorney Mary Rice Hasson, entitled Open Monogamy , blew the cover off gay and lesbian relationships. I also cited an article in Psychology Today (September 16, 2008), acknowledging that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships. The contrast with heterosexual behavior is once again readily apparent. Just 7% of Americans believe that adultery (infidelity by married sexual partners) is morally acceptable. Over the course of a lifetime, somewhere between a quarter and a half of married men and women break their vows; but that still means that at least half don't – and even those that do, generally acknowledge that what they have done is morally wrong. Additionally, I have argued in this thread that there is nothing in the nature of a gay relationship which requires it to be either monogamous or sexually exclusive, because it is not a relationship in which the procreation of a new human life is liable to occur. There is little doubt, then, that if gay marriage were legalized, children in public schools would end up being taught that monogamy and sexual exclusivity are not defining features of marriage. This would be a catastrophic social outcome, and I think we should try to prevent it from happening, by all legal means available to us. Running away from the problem by sending your kids to private schools won't help, either. Governments can deny funding and/or accreditation to schools which teach what they define as bigotry. And if homosexual marriages are legalized, it is only a matter of time before the view that homosexuals are incapable of marrying gets officially labeled as bigotry or hate speech. Lest anyone think I am guilty of conspiracy-mongering here, I'd like to quote again from the article by Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., entitled "What is Marriage?" (December 8, 2010), and published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 . On pages 276-278, the authors write:
In the absence of strong reasons to abide by marital norms in relationships radically dissimilar to marriages, you would expect to see less regard for those norms in both practice and theory. And on both counts, you would be right. Consider the norm of monogamy. Judith Stacey – a prominent New York University professor who testified before Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act and is in no way regarded by her academic colleagues as a fringe figure – expressed hope that the triumph of the revisionist view would give marriage "varied, creative, and adaptive contours ... [leading some to] question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek ... small group marriages."90 In their statement "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," more than 300 "LGBT and allied" scholars and advocates – including prominent Ivy League professors – call for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners.91 Professor Brake thinks that we are obligated in justice to use such legal recognition to "denormalize[] heterosexual monogamy as a way of life" for the sake of "rectifying past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and care networks."92 What about the connection to children? Andrew Sullivan says that marriage has become "primarily a way in which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another."93 E.J. Graff celebrates the fact that recognizing same-sex unions would make marriage "ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers."94 And exclusivity? Mr. Sullivan, who extols the "spirituality" of "anonymous sex," also thinks that the "openness" of same-sex unions could enhance the relationships of husbands and wives:
Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. ... [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. ... [S]omething of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.95
Of course, "openness" and "flexibility" here are Sullivan’s euphemisms for sexual infidelity. Indeed, some revisionists have positively embraced the goal of weakening the institution of marriage. "[Former President George W.] Bush is correct ... when he states that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage."96 Victoria Brownworth is no right-wing traditionalist, but an advocate of legally recognizing gay partnerships. She continues: "It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been."97 Professor Ellen Willis, another revisionist, celebrates that "conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart."98 Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, urges same-sex couples to "demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."99 Same-sex couples should "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely[, because t]he most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake ... is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."100 (Emphases mine – VJT.) 90. See Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 33, 51–52 (2004), at 62. 91. Beyond Same?Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families & Relationships, BEYONDMARRIAGE.ORG (July 26, 2006), http://beyondmarriage.org/ full_statement.html . 92. Elizabeth Brake, Minimal Marriage: What Political Liberalism Implies for Marriage Law, 120 ETHICS 302, 332 (2010), at 336, 323. 93. Andrew Sullivan, Introduction, in SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON: A READER, at xvii, xix (Andrew Sullivan ed., 1st ed. 1997). 94. E.J. GRAFF, Retying the Knot, in SAME?SEX MARRIAGE: PRO AND CON, supra note 93, at 134, 136. 95. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality 202–03 (1996). 96. Victoria A. Brownworth, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Is Marriage Right for Queers?, in I Do/I Don’t: Queers on Marriage 53, 58–59 (Greg Wharton & Ian Philips eds., 2004). 97. Id. at 59. 98. Ellen Willis, Can Marriage Be Saved? A Forum, THE NATION, July 5, 2004, at 16, 16. 99. Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, Dec.–Jan. 1994, at 68, 161. 100. Id.
I should add that Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Cornel West have already demanded legal recognition of "multiple-partner" sexual relationships. San Antonio Rose has asked two very pertinent questions regarding the legalization of homosexual marriage. First, how would it affect your marriage? But one could just as well ask: how would the legalization of polygamy, or of polyamorous unions, affect your marriage? Why not legalize those too? And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the critical question if not how it affects our marriages, but our children’s and our grand-children's. Second, San Antonio Rose asked how the prohibition of homosexual marriages differs from the prohibition of inter-racial marriages, in former times. The answer should be obvious enough: the race of the two parties getting married is not, and never was, part of the legal definition of marriage. But it has always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman. I might add that nearly two-thirds of California's black community voted to uphold traditional marriage under Proposition 8. Evidently they didn't think the parallel between inter-racial marriages and homosexual marriages was an apt one, either. Let me observe in passing that if two people of the same sex, living under the same roof, wish to publicly designate each other as "next of kin" and obtain certain legal rights like inheritance rights and making medical decisions for the other partner when he/she is incapacitated, then I have absolutely no objection to them making such a legal arrangement. Such an arrangement would allow them the satisfaction of making their partner a member of their family, in an acknowledged legal sense. But that's not a marriage, for the reasons I have argued above. In the course of this very long thread, many contributors on this thread (myself included) also addressed the morality of homosexual acts. I and several other Christian contributors have repeatedly insisted that although homosexual acts are sinful, homosexuals are children of God. I also quoted from the Manhattan Declaration: "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..." None of us has any excuse for feelings of pride or superiority. Various reasons were given on this thread for regarding homosexual acts as immoral - some Biblical, others based on natural law. The two sets of arguments complement one another, as shown by St. Paul insisted that God's existence can be known from the things He has made, and also that the immorality of certain kinds of behavior, including homosexual acts, is evident even to non-believers (Romans 1:18-32). The fact that the Bible condemns homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) is well-known. Attempts by pro-gay apologists have been made to limit the scope of St. Paul's broad-sweeping condemnation of homosexual acts, but these have been convincingly refuted by Assistant Professor David Malick, in his article, The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 in Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340. Regarding the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, I would also strongly recommend Responding to Pro-gay Theology Part I , Part II and Part III , by Joe Dallas, founder of Genesis Counseling, and the author of three books on homosexuality. A former gay rights activist and staff member of a Metropolitan Community Church, Joe Dallas has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. Joe Dallas's final words are very moving and worth quoting:
I remember clearly, and with inexpressible regret, the day I convinced myself it was acceptable for me to be both gay and Christian. Not only did I embrace the pro-gay theology - I promoted it as well, serving on the staff of the local Metropolitan Community Church and presenting the arguments cited in this series. Twelve years have passed since I realized my error, and during those years the pro-gay theology has enjoyed unprecedented exposure and acceptance, both in mainline denominations and among sincere (albeit sincerely deceived) believers. Many Christians are unaware that there is such a thing as pro-gay theology, much less a movement built around it. And many who are aware of it have no idea how to answer its claims. Yet an answer is required; the pro-gay theology, like the gay rights movement it represents, grows daily in scope and influence. With the love Christ showed while weeping over Jerusalem, and the anger He displayed when clearing the Temple, the Church must respond.
The immorality of homosexual acts can also be known from the nature of the male and female sexes. The complementarity of the two sexes was stressed by various contributors to this thread: "Male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). Man and woman are "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This vital element of complementarity is absent from gay relationships. Two men or two women cannot complement each other, and can therefore never truly be "one flesh." Other contributors emphasized the fact that only sex between a man and a woman is inherently procreative. Procreation demands a lifelong, monogamous and sexually exclusive relationship, for the rearing of children. On an individual level, a man and a woman marry for love; but on the social level, the main reason why marriage is so important is that it is the seedbed within which the next generation is raised. If there were no procreation, or alternatively, if people normally procreated asexually, there would be no need for the social institution of marriage. This fact in no way diminishes the value of marriages between couples who cannot conceive a child. The point I made, however, was that their marriages are valid, precisely because infertile and fertile couples perform the same kind of marital act, and because this act is, in normal cases, an act in which procreation is liable to occur (the likelihood varying according to the phase in the woman's cycle). The sexual acts performed by gay couples, on the other hand, are not and cannot be procreative. Why is this so important? Because it means that marital sex has a transcendent dimension. It isn't just about two people. The point I am making here is that sex is good, but also potentially dangerous (in our fallen condition). For some people, it can be addictive and enslaving. Mynym did an excellent job of describing how this can occur for homosexuals; but we should remember that heterosexuals are liable to sex addiction, too. Pleasure for pleasure's sake is a spiritual minefield, and any activity that doesn't take people out of themselves has the potential to trap them inside their own egos. That's one reason why I would disagree with the suggestion made by some contributors that an act of anal or oral sex, on its own, could be morally acceptable for a married man and woman. For a gay couple might reasonably object: "Why are the same activities wrong for us?" Someone might reply that gay couples seldom practice exclusive monogamy, but this invites the objection: what about the very few that do? Alternatively, someone might argue that gay couples cannot complement each other as a man and a woman do, but again I would ask: where is the element of male-female complementarity in anal or oral sex? The only kind of sexual act which is inherently complementary is penis-vagina sex – i.e. sex which involves intromission. For these reasons, I would argue that only an act which culminates in intromission, even if it also includes various forms of foreplay and afterplay, has the potential to unite a man and a woman in a way that respects the transcendent good of procreation, which reminds them that sex has an essential life-giving aspect, and that it is about something bigger than they are. Some pro-gay contributors to this thread pointed out that it is very difficult for homosexuals to change their orientation. According to current research, motivated clients have about a 30 per cent success rate in converting from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. Four points need to be made here. First, 30 per cent is not a bad figure: many approved medical treatments are far less effective. Second, the treatments developed by Exodus Ministries arenot harmful to the participants:
In response to gay activists who charged that the Exodus ministries were harmful to homosexuals, Stanton Jones, Ph.D. and Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D. conducted a longitudinal study on sexual orientation change achieved through the Exodus ministries. Their results published in 2007 found no meaningful evidence that the attempt to change sexual orientation through the Exodus ministries causes harm. Nicolosi and Exodus also report that half of those who are unable to change their sexual orientation still benefit from their effort.
Third, science may develop more successful treatments in the future. Fourth, even if it does not, it is fallacious to argue from "X is ineradicable" to "X is natural" and from there to "X is good." Many harmful conditions are ineradicable (e.g. alcoholism), but that does not make them good. To effectively undermine the argument that only sex between a man and a woman can ever be morally good, one would need to show that there are some people whose nature precludes them from being fulfilled by this kind of sex, but whose nature also allows them to be personally fulfilled by homosexual sex. In other words, one would need to show that gays are a distinct type of human being, with a distinct good of their own. If there is one myth we need to puncture, it is this one. Our everyday discourse is permeated with the implicit assumption that homosexuals belong to a separate type of their own, as distinct from heterosexuals. But once we think of homosexuals as different kinds of people from ourselves, it seems arrogant to tell them what they can and cannot do. What we need to do is question the category that we call "homosexual." Gays and lesbians are not in a separate moral compartment from ourselves, so let's stop talking about them as if they were. As for the causes of homosexuality, no hard evidence was presented that they were hereditary, and good evidence was presented that they were at least partly environmental: for example, the fact that the identical twin of a gay person is usually not gay. I also cited the article, Evolution, animals and gay behavior by Jerry Coyne, which showed that animal studies shed little (if any) light on human homosexuality, and that the causes of homosexuality in animals are many and varied. It may be tempting to think that subtle environmental factors, perhaps coupled with genetic factors, cause some individuals to have a homosexual orientation, but I argued in comment #189 above (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/#comment-368530 ) that this may be asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking what causes people to develop a heterosexual orientation, and then ask ourselves what might happen if this developmental process goes awry. I suspect that heterosexuality will turn out to be a fragile thing. We take it for granted now, but according to an article I quoted from the American College of Pediatricians, entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? , "children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity." Some studies by the gay lobby have claimed to find no difference between homosexual and heterosexual households, but an overview of 21 studies conducted to date found that there is one (Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter , American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 159-183):
The sexual orientation of parents appears to have a unique (although not large) effect on children in the politically sensitive domain of sexuality. The evidence, while scanty and underanalyzed, hints that parental sexual orientation is positively associated with the possibility that children will be more likely to attain a similar orientation – and theory and common sense also support such a view. Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homo-erotic relationships… We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity. (pp. 177-178)
According to the abstract, "researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions." Speaking of pediatricians, may I remind readers that in comment #212 above (see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/taking-manhattan-out-of-the-apple/#comment-368570 ), I exposed a massive fraud perpetrated by the American Academy of Pediatrics on this thread: the recent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) by Drs. Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos, which was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). (Gartrell, N. and Bos, H. (2010). "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents," Pediatrics, Volume 126, Number 1, July 2010 p. 28-36. Available online at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/126/1/28 .) Since the 1980s, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) has been following and reporting on a cohort of planned lesbian families with children conceived through donor insemination. A critical review of this study by Dr. Albert Dean Byrd, PhD, MPA, MPH, exposed the gaping holes in the study, in an article entitled, New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence . The fact that the authors of the study were both lesbian activists; that they accepted the lesbian mothers' own ratings of their children's well-being without question; that the lesbian mothers who took part in the study were self-selected (recruited at gay and lesbian venues) and highly affluent (85% of them in professional or managerial positions); that the lesbian mothers taking part in the study knew that it would be used for political purposes, while the heterosexual mothers in the control group did not; and finally, the fact that data about the sexual orientation of the children of lesbian mothers was omitted from the study – all these things completely destroy the credibility of the study. Yet it was reported by a gullible press as settling the question of whether lesbians make good mothers. While it remains the case that most children of homosexual parents go on to become heterosexuals, the point is that over the course of several generations, the proportion of heterosexuals will gradually decline, if gay and lesbian adoption becomes widespread. For my part, I believe that while heterosexual behavior is "natural" in the sense of realizing our human potential for life and love in the fullest possible way, it is not "natural" in the sense of "hard-wired." We're not insects; most of our behavior is learned. In the wrong kind of society, heterosexual behavior may not be learned at all, leading to a generation of maladjusted men and women who don't even like each other's company, because they haven't been brought up properly. It has happened before: ancient Rome, where the sex ratio was in excess of 120:100, had a very strong bachelor culture of misogynistic men, as did ancient Greece. I share kairosfocus's pessimism about the future of our own culture. The attempts by government bureaucrats in North America and Europe to destroy what they perceive as the bigotry of the Judeo-Christian ethic will probably succeed, and in 20 years' time, parents who educate their children to believe in traditional moral norms (such as the teaching that abortion is homicide, or that homosexual acts are wrong) will have their children taken away from them by an army of zealous social workers, concerned that the children’s psychological welfare is being harmed by their parents' "indoctrination." Some people will resist, but I suspect they will be too few and too weak. I hope I'm wrong, but barring a miracle (which may well happen), I expect that Christianity will be dead in Europe in 30 years, and in about 50-70 years, in North and South America. For a while, secularism will reign supreme in the West, but its triumph will be brief; it will be powerless to withstand the march of Islam. Before it falls, the West will probably corrupt sub-Saharan Africa too, by making overseas development assistance (ODA) conditional on Africa implementing the West's secularist program – for example, legalizing abortion. Curiously, it will be in Russia, China and Korea that Christianity will probably survive, and gradually flourish. It looks like we're in for a very interesting century. Whatever happens, let us hope that the values of the Manhattan Declaration – in particular, its defense of "the unborn, the disabled and the dependent," and also the value of traditional marriage – continue to be upheld and taught by those who adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethic, all around the world. I cannot finish without saying a few words of thanks. I'd like to thank kairosfocus, mynym, Stephen B., Upright BiPed, allanius, vividbleau, tribune 7 and other contributors, for upholding the value of traditional marriage. I can see that QuiteID's views on legality are very different from mine, even though his moral views largely coincide with my own. Thanks as always to markf for his thoughtful criticisms, and my apologies for any personal affronts he may have endured on this thread. Thanks also to zephyr for forthrightly articulating his views, even if they are poles apart from my own on some issues. Finally, San Antonio Rose deserves a special acknowledgement for a spirited defense of her views on this thread; she will make an excellent debater one day. I would urge her, though, to try to mentally put herself in the position of her intellectual opponents, to understand their way of thinking more fully, and to be careful of unintentionally slighting her opponents. That will make her an even better debater. Well, that's all I wanted to say, everyone. I have enjoyed this discussion.vjtorley_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Quiet ID & Markf Quiet ID, thank you. Markf -- Apple didn’t ban the Manhattan declaration. If Apple banned the app from the iTunes store, they banned the app. Do the they have the right to do so? Sure. This is not a First Amendment issue. This is a pointing out "progressive" hypocrisy issue regarding things like tolerating opposing viewpoints and open dissent. A corporation has the right to decide which causes it supports. Think different.tribune7_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Markf @ 445
I don’t know about others but I have never defended (or attacked) any activity on the grounds of being natural. In fact I am not sure what it means for an activity to be natural. Is eating too much natural? Is road rage natural?
I believe that a natural activity has a biological/genetic basis to it and should produce some benefit, not harm, to the individual and/or species. So by definition eating, sleeping, and sexual reproduction are natural. On the other hand, homosexuality is not natural given the absence of conclusive scientific evidence to prove this point. Furthermore, it has a strong correlation with serious harm, and I cannot think of any benefit to it aside from an emotional justification to an unnatural desire. Keep in mind that an emotional/mental gratification does not necessarily amount to a benefit. A drug addict may feel gratified on the short term after taking a “sniff”, but this comes at the expense of a serious harm on the long term. Let me know if you disagree with the above definition for “natural”, but I believe that any activity out there that we consider natural, fits perfectly into this definition. As for overeating and road rage, they do not fit the definition since they produce harm. Now there may be (hypothetically) a genetic basis for overeating, in this case it meets the first criterion for having a biological basis, but not the second criterion since it produces more harm than good. So it will most likely be seen as a genetic disorder. Therefore, genetic disorders are not natural since they do not adequately fit the definition. But even though overeating and road rage are not natural, they do not necessarily incur damage every time a person eats too much or goes on a road rage. Nonetheless, having a potential to cause harm is enough reason for rational minds to discourage or even prohibit the activity in question, despite the fact that some individuals may derive pleasure or gratification from eating a lot or going crazy on the road. The exact same reasoning applies to homosexuality since it is unnatural. And homosexuality has also been positively linked to psychological, social, and medical problems. Notice that we are talking about a strong link, not just a theoretical potential to cause damage. Speaking of natural, I would also like to invoke the “yuck” factor and the fact that it has been historically universal. This means that it is a perfectly natural reaction driven by human nature, not by a specific religion, don’t you think? I think it was you who previously mentioned that kids think of sex as a “yuck”! But this is also a perfectly natural reaction from kids towards sex, and I’d rather have kids thinking of it this way as opposed to a perverted way since they are young innocent minds after all. They will grow up eventually and stop thinking of sex as a yuck. So the example of kids does not mean that our nature is telling us that sex is yuck in & of itself, and hence the yuck instinct is not necessarily misguiding the human nature. In fact, I think that it is a reliable guide towards what is natural and what is not. My point is that the natural yuck factor should not be ignored in favor of a subjective view.
I haven’t had the time to read and assess all the stuff about the psychological, social, and medical problems associated with being gay. I imagine there are quite a lot. But so what? We need to decide what the issue is and the relevance of that evidence to that issue.
I think that it is problematic to drive a wedge between a problem and its root cause, separating them, and then claiming that the two are not related. However, what is more problematic is that you admit that there are “quite alot” of problems associated with “being gay” as you put it. The problem with your line of reasoning is that now you (and others on your side) are seeking exceptions to the rule where the root cause is believed to have not caused the associated problem. But this is analogous to killing mosquitoes on top of a swap, whereby the rational solution would be to drain the swap and get rid of its infestations. This would be much more rational than to claim that the swap has nothing to do with the mosquitoes, or admit that they are related but it is better to deal with each single mosquito individually and having to chase after thousands of mosquitoes. Do you get my point? And isn’t it the humanist ideology that defines morality in terms of objectively identifying what causes benefits vs what causes harms. I recall one humanist saying that we do not need a religious commandment to tell as “thou shall not put your hand on a hot stove”. So here you have the objective evidence linking homosexuality to serious psychological, social, and medical problems. What is the excuse now?
1)Homosexual activity is a sin. Psychological, social, and medical problems are irrelevant. There are considerable such problems associated with overworking and alcoholism. These problems need to be addressed but they don’t make overworking and alcoholism sins.
Actually they are relevant. The Abrahamic faiths have an almost identical definition of the things that are defined as sins. The philosophy of defining a sin is strongly related to its potential to cause harm. Hence alcoholism is prohibited in Islam, and even Judaism has something to that effect. The prohibition of alcoholism is intended to eliminate the root cause to many of its associated problems. There is also a recognition that as long as the root cause is active, no matter how careful we are in dealing with it, its problems can never be totally prevented. Hence, draining the “swamp” is the best solution. Now I’m not necessarily advocating that alcohol consumption should be prohibited in USA, but I strongly agree with the above philosophy. About 20 thousand Americans die every year due to drunk-driving accidents despite all the strict legal measures taken to prevent such tragedies. That means that about 20 thousand lives could have been saved if the above mentioned philosophy had been implemented.
2)Homosexual activity should be illegal If there are any significant number of gay people who do not suffer or cause psychological, social, and medical problems then it would be unreasonable to make homosexuality illegal. Why should they suffer because of problems associated with other gay people? It would be like making the gypsy/traveller life illegal because of problems associated with many but not all gypsies
Again, looking for exceptions is not an adequate justification. The only way to verify that is through statistical studies to show that there is no significant correlation between homosexuality and its associated problems. The only studies we have here indicate the opposite.
3)Homosexual marriage should not be allowed As far as I can see none of these possible psychological, social, and medical problems arise specifically from gay marriage – rather they are alleged to arise from homosexual relationships in general. In fact it may well be that they arise just because gay people have not had the option to have publically recognised relationships such as marriage. I am not saying there is any evidence for this. All I am saying is that there is no evidence against it either. The evidence available is not relevant to gay marriage
I fail to see the distinction between homosexual relationships in general and marriage. A marriage is just a legal relationship. And by legalizing it we are inevitably opening the gates to a wide range of homosexual relationships. Recall the fact that someone mentioned in an earlier post about how sexual promiscuity is more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals. And how can you prove that by legalizing their marriage we will minimize promiscuity? I highly doubt that. Even if it does, we still have the problems of AIDS and STDs risk which is significant in gay couples, and the issue of children reared by same-sex parents.
Is this analysis sufficiently objective and unemotional for you?
I’m afraid not, the only objective analysis would be a scientific study showing the absence of a strong correlation between homosexuality and its problems. If you know of such a study let me know. The majority of arguments on your side remain emotional and subjective.Shogun_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Thank you vividbleau [476] for volunteering a straightforward, no-nonsense answer. I appreciate it.QuiteID_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

KF:
You just specificaly called me one who is a tacit supporter of murder, Ms “Rose.”
Yes, I did and upon rereading of your comment 446 I see that you did specifically condemn mass murder. So, I was wrong and for that I apologize. Could you do me one kindness before my voice is silenced? StephenB was gracious enough to say that, except for the right to form a family, he believes that homosexuals are entitled to all the rights afforded to their fellow citizens. These rights may included some or all of the 28 rights laid out in the Yogyakarta document (depending on the particular country.) Could you please indicate whether you agree or disagree that homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights that there fellow citizens are entitled to? I really don't understand you reluctance to answer what seems to be a rather simple question.San Antonio Rose_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

allanius [463] wrote:
Imagine for a moment there is a God. Imagine that God considers homosexual acts to be abhorrent and prohibits them.
I don't have to imagine that, I know it to be true.
In that case, which is kinder? To warn those who engage in homosexual acts about God’s antipathy? Or to pretend that God doesn’t really mean what he said and that homosexual acts do not have any negative consequences?
As a Christian, I can warn those who engage in homosexual acts while supporting their right to civil marriage. I want to discuss how this debate has grown in this thread, and especially the way accusations toward interlocutors have become part of it. It seems to me that one can make a reasonable argument for homosexual marriage that is grounded in a certain view of human rights. By the same token, one can make a reasonable argument against homosexual marriage that is grounded in a certain view of human nature. Many differences in perspective come from these different groundings, and many misunderstandings from their interaction. One side may tend to view the other as being unreasonable; accusations of unreasonableness, traded back and forth, may take over the debate. What I'm trying to get at it this: What kairosfocus perceives as slander from SAR, and what SAR perceives as fear or prejudice from kairosfocus, seem to come from these distinctions. Of course SAR doesn't see herself as committing slander, and of course kairosfocus doesn't see himself as acting from prejudice or fear. These understandings only emerge from the framework of the other side, a framework each person is -- by definition of his or her position in the argumetn -- unwilling to accept.QuiteID_{December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply