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
SAR: Evidently, despite much warning, correction and even protest, you cannot or will not resist the temptation of slander:
SAR, 472: In many places around the world, gays have to fear for their lives because there are cultures that would do them real violence. Now I am sure that you wouldn’t commit any such violence. It is obvious you are a man of words and not a man of fists. But, your refusal to answer my honest question posed first in comment 455, and reiterated in comments 459 and 468, can be seen as tacit support for such violence.
You just specificaly called me one who is a tacit supporter of murder, Ms "Rose." Worse, this trollery and outrageous slander is in the teeth of my repeated statement that what is needed and what I support is the protection of human life from conception to natural death. (Kindly observe that I have also pointed out -- on very careful reflection on the matter -- that ANY listing of specially protected groups is actually counter-productive to the key point. For, for any set listed, someone can come along and say that you do not support the protection of whoever you do not happen to list. And, by listing politically correct groups the implication is that -- tacitly -- it is open season on the inconvenient unborn, the elderly, and the disabled. Here is my list of those groups whom I believe should be protected from murder and other forms of violent abuse: any human being, from conception to natural death. And, this I have repeatedly pointed out; including to you. In short, Ms Rose, you are a willful, insistent slanderer; to the utterly uncalled for, unjustified and outrageous point of suggesting the slanderous and false accusation that I tacitly support the murder of homosexuals. (If you were in my jurisdiction, that would be enough to land you in court on a slander or libel suit; one that you would lose.) Take this as the notification to you of my own notification to the Blog Owner of your abuse of the posting privilege. (I hope you will at least think about the point we have been making all along: a principled concern that homosexualisation of marriage is not a good thing for our civilisation, is not to be equated with hatred of -- that is the step that leads to murder -- or prejudice against those who are living with or struggling against same sex attractions and behaviour. [And BTW, that group includes some of the nearest and dearest of all people to me.]) Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Stephen:
Let me begin with a fact in evidence. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.
Thank you. I understand that you don't believe that homosexuals have a right to form the family of their choice, but I am glad you do think homosexuals have the right to all other freedoms like, for example, equal recognition before the law, privacy, peaceful assembly, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and to participate in public and cultural life.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
---SanAntonioRose to kairosfocus: "Of the 28 rights that are addressed in the [Yogyakarta] document, in any given society some or all are available to heterosexuals. I understand that you do not feel that homosexuals should have a right to form a family (Principle 24). Of the remaining 27 rights, it seems reasonable that, to the extent that any particular society recognizes those rights, they should be available to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you agree or don’t you?" Let me begin with a fact in evidence. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. If they choose, they can marry anyone that is available of the opposite sex. That is the same right that we all have. Unfortunately, something really is wrong with homosexuals and that fact needs to be recognized by society’s institutions in the same way that society recognizes that something is wrong with anyone who would want to marry his mother. Should we, in fact, allow a man to marry his mother on the grounds that he is not attracted to women outside of his family? Obviously, you cannot argue against such a practice because it would violate your perverse notions about freedom, which you interpret as license. Should we allow a woman to marry her son simply because other mothers have the same kinds of desires? Naturally, you cannot respond because you have no rational or moral standard for deciding on the matter. Given these realities, there is no reason in the world for a rational society to let homosexuals marry each other in order to try to make what is wrong with them seem right. The problem here is very simple: Homosexuals are burdened with a psychic/moral disorder. Once again, you cannot recognize it as a disorder because you have no conception of order. One must understand the former in order to identify the latter. That homosexuals are so burdened is an unfortunate fact that calls for compassion and understanding, but it does not call for the kind of irrational tolerance that you are proposing. One cannot legitimize illegitimate behavior by trying to reframe it as a marriage relationship. Again, I know that you can scarcely conceive of any such thing as immoral sexual activity, but that is only because, other than your own feelings, you have no moral standard to make theses kinds of judgments. You have nothing to go on except for that the mindless, forty-year-old cliche, "if it feels good, do it."StephenB
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
MarkF RE 425 You are warranted in admonishing me for my comments. Truth be told after sending it I thought to myself that I was out of line. Although we disagree on ost everything that is not a liscence for me o hurl insults. I should have corrected it before you pointed out my hostile attitude. Pleas accept my apologies. You have always been civil and I will endeavor to do so myself in the future. Vividvividbleau
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Quite ID RE 434 I do,although I think the arguments against are more compelling. Vividvividbleau
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
tribune7, you write:
I haven’t seen one defender of gay marriage say “I support gay marriage but Apple is wrong in banning the Manhatten Declaration and I call on them to rescind their action.”
OK, I'll say it: I support gay marriage but Apple is wrong in banning the Manhatten Declaration and I call on them to rescind their action. I would add that I oppose gay marriage in the church but support civil marriage for homosexuals.QuiteID
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
We are only accountable to our own beliefs and our own relationship to God. Yet, you seem unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the vast majority of homosexuals that you expect them to grant you. Are you willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the vast majority of promiscuous people as well? Have I mentioned that we're victimized? You could picture me crying a little tear about it all if that would help. I should also mention that I have a nice promiscuous friend, not to mention that many great men have been promiscuous. All of this goes to show that promiscuity is the equal of monogamy and promiscuous people should be treated as the equals of monogamous people. Equal rights for all!mynym
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
No one is forcing you to have a gay marriage. You can marry whomever you please. No I can't because I'm a promiscuous person who was born this way. We're being discriminated against by Christians who want to impose their values on us. Does our victimization activate your motherly instinct to protect us or does that only apply to the effeminate? At any rate, promiscuous people have only just got around to changing the laws about a lot of things but if the process continues then we'll have our rights too. Promiscuity pride! What do you think about calling ourselves joy people? After all, we're all really happy despite the stereotypes about people who pursue happiness and love this way. And there's no difference between promiscuity people and monogamous people per se, other than the fact that we're promiscuous. For now, anyways. You’ll be one of the first I have report to the re-education camps for your new gay marriage. Bwahahahaha! LOL Shrug, if the Nordic nations are any measure then the narcissistic/gay philosophy of "love" typical to the MTV generation will lead to more and more people not bothering to get married in the first place. And if they do get married it will last about as long as Britney Spear's relationships. This philosophy: "You make me happy so I love you." and consequently "Now I am unhappy so I don't love you." is actually the opposite of marriage vows, so why bother in the first place? The gay philosophy of hedonism at the root of saying that sexual desires/orientation define the truth and morality does away with what was formerly known as marriage. Pretending to be just like the conservative and monogamous heterosexuals from the 1950s or some such is merely a game that some are playing for now in order to finish doing away with marriage. It's interesting that this pretense of being basically just like conservative Christians is based on upholding the distinction between male and female for now. That means that "perverts" who go farther in their denial of the reality of the basic natural categories of male and female are to be excluded for now:
For some critics, it isn't so much the idea of victim imagery that offends, but whom we will present as victims: all-American types so starchily conformist in appearance that they can barely bend their knees, let alone stoop to fellatio. Some fear that a media campaign featuring only 'ordinary-looking' gays would disdainfully disenfranchise drag queens, bull dykes, and other exotic elements of the gay community. This is not our goal, and it is painful to think that such people might begin to feel like second-class members of their own outgroup. Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. But like it or not, by the very nature of the pscychological mechanism, desensitization works gradually or not at all. (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :186)
Actually, the denial of nature law never works anyway. I know you believe in some little MTV myths that we'll all come together with perverts like Michael Jackson to sing "We are the world." in the end but history shows that is extremely unlikely. It is interesting how Kirk and Madsen recommend using all the methods of psychology, the pop "cult"ure of the Herd, propaganda, conditioning and so on to change the revulsion and so on that many straights feel toward homosexuality. They're trying to change the culture around it even when the same methods could be directed toward changing homosexuality itself. It's also interesting that the groups which supposedly transcend sex like the transexuals and so on actually break down the distinction on which same-sex sexuality is based. So it would seem that virtually everything can be changed and transcended, except the notion of "homosexuals." Culture and society can be changed, the basic biosocial reality of sex can be changed, yet supposedly homosexuality is the one thing that can never be changed. That is, if you're stupid and ignorant enough to believe that. Perhaps it's about time for people to begin admitting that they want homosexuality to be treated as something good and desirable which is worth choosing.mynym
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
KF:
You still cannot — or, is it refuse to see? — see the difference between objecting to a carefully orchestrated manipulative agenda that sows hostility and misunderstanding by slandering those who have a reasoned, fact based objection to the homosexualisation of marriage [the foundational and stabilising institution of our civilisation], and concern that people caught up in same sex attractions and behaviour are caught up in an objectively disordered and potentially socially destructive, spiritually ruinous practice.
Yes, yes, yes, there are some homosexual radicals out there who are intent on creating a new political order. Yet, you seem intent on enacting rules on all homosexuals whether they subscribe to that agenda or not. As Christians, we are rightly upset when we are asked to account for the actions of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. We are only accountable to our own beliefs and our own relationship to God. Yet, you seem unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the vast majority of homosexuals that you expect them to grant you. In the West, I suppose we should be grateful that gay marriage is the key issue. In many places around the world, gays have to fear for their lives because there are cultures that would do them real violence. Now I am sure that you wouldn't commit any such violence. It is obvious you are a man of words and not a man of fists. But, your refusal to answer my honest question posed first in comment 455, and reiterated in comments 459 and 468, can be seen as tacit support for such violence. It isn't a big matter for you to affirm that you believe that, to the extent that any particular society recognizes those rights spelled out in the Yogyakarta principles (except Principle 24, which I grant you object to), they should be available to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
PS: Many former homosexuals have formed stable families and rejoice to raise up children to the glory of God. That is a very different thing from abusing the power of the state -- especially by making law from the judge's bench -- to arbitrarily subvert the foundational and stabilising institution of our civilisation, family based on the marriage of man and woman, the complementary sexes that are involved in procreation. Was it Abraham Lincoln who once asked what would happen if you called the tail of a sheep a leg, how many legs would it have? the answer was: five. to which, Lincoln replied: no, merely labelling a tail a leg did not make it onto a leg by nature. So, the sheep still has four legs, whatever people taken in by a calculated deception may want to say.kairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
SAR: You still cannot -- or, is it refuse to see? -- see the difference between objecting to a carefully orchestrated manipulative agenda that sows hostility and misunderstanding by slandering those who have a reasoned, fact based objection to the homosexualisation of marriage [the foundational and stabilising institution of our civilisation], and concern that people caught up in same sex attractions and behaviour are caught up in an objectively disordered and potentially socially destructive, spiritually ruinous practice. THE RESPONSES TO THE TWO ARE UTTERLY DIFFERENT. For those caught up in an unfortunate, and evidently addictive disordered condition, the response is prayer, counsel and support for the needed change. (And, there are many thousands today who testify to the truth in 1 Cor 6:9 - 11 that same sex attractions and behaviour can be turned away from by the grace of God through the gospel. For such, the message is hope.) For the ones involved in a radical agenda to use well known rhetorical, propaganda and subversive stratagems to subvert and destabilise our civlisation -- and this goes far beyond those who are setting out on arbitrarily changing the legal definition of marriage -- the proper answer is to expose their objectives, schemes and tactics. As has been done above. You are digging yourself in deeper in the hole. So, please, stop, look in the mirror and face the slanders you have lent yourself to. Then, take the courage to apologise and make amends. Otherwise, you will simply spiral ever deeper into a vortex of alienation, polarisation and contribution to the self-destruction of our civilisation. good day, madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
PS: Some iPad alternatives. (Mr Jobs: Peter Drucker's shade just called -- St Peter lent him his Android. He said to remind you that the proper objective of a business that intends to be an ongoing concern [as opposed to being a fly by night "cheat & teef shop"] is a sustainably profitable customer base, not immediate profits.)kairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
KF:
SAR — under the impact of the explicitly emotional manipulation described above as intent by Kirk, Madsen et al — evidently cannot distinguish and irrational fear or prejudice from a reasonable concern regarding a potentially destructive outcome for our civilisation. She refuses to address teh issues on the merits, and projects hetefulness where it is not.
If I project hatefulness, it is because you offer little but condemnation towards an entire group of people based on the agenda of a radical few. For example, on the subject of how human rights apply to homosexuals I asked you a very simple question: Of the 28 rights that are addressed in the [Yogyakarta] document, in any given society some or all are available to heterosexuals. I understand that you do not feel that homosexuals should have a right to form a family (Principle 24). Of the remaining 27 rights, it seems reasonable that, to the extent that any particular society recognizes those rights, they should be available to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you agree or don’t you? Your refusal to answer leaves me a void in my understanding (that perhaps I am too quick to fill) and leads to me wonder what other rights you might deprive homosexuals of. Perhaps it is none, in which case I will think more highly of you. But, you won't deign to answer a question from a child such as myself, will you?San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
MF: You of course suppress relevant context. Apple dominates a very significant market, through its traditional locked in operating system for iPhones and iPads. There is one online store to get relevant applications. On a slanderous complaint from what seems to be a homosexualist activist group, with no reasonable explanation, the petition application was censored. The excuse is exactly the slander that reasoned and principled, fact-based objection to homosexualisation of the foundational institution that stabilises our civilisation can be dismissed as hate, prejudice and bigotry. Such censorship is inexcusable morally -- oops, your evolutionary materialistic worldview reduces morality to power games and manipulation games [have you found a basis for grounding right and rights yet, other than "might makes right" or "manipulation makes right'?] -- whatever Apple may think about its property rights. Property rights end where slander begins, as any decent lawyer will tell you. And, we are entitled to note on what Apple has done here, to draw conclusions about what he homosexualist radicals will do if they gain more power, and to protest. Indeed, we are fully entitled to advertise against Apple, and advocate that we make a monstrous pile of our iPads, iPhones and Macs, then publicly run a steamroller over them, signing a public declaration that we will in future never buy or support another Apple product. If you don't think there is Biblical precedent for such a public act of protest and repudiation, let me correct you:
Ac 19:18Also many of those who were now believers came,(AB) confessing and divulging their practices. 19And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20So the word of the Lord(AC) continued to increase and prevail mightily . . .
(Android is coming along nicely and has an inherently open system. Already there are any number of Android smart phones, and there are iPad competitors -- cf Android Tablets mentyioned here, and this store taken at random here. All, duly based on Linux technology, with some tweaks. [Maybe some of our lawyers should investigate what Apple's obligations are if it is using Unix and Java technologies anywhere, given the amount of public support that has gone into these technologies.] I used to recommend Apple's technologies for Multimedia production systems. I cut my eye-teeth on a fondly remembered original Mac. I assure you this behaviour by my former favourite computing company has given me serious pause about ever endorsing or buying ANY Apple product again, ever. Apple has broken trust; and in such a way at such a point that it will be all but impossible to rebuild: you make a locked-in system, there is an implicit commitment never to abuse that power. Apple has done that. I only hope Apple's management and that of other companies will begin to understand what arrogantly alienating 2.2 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims -- in full agreement on this matter -- will in the end do to their bottomline.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Trib and UB: Thanks. SAR -- under the impact of the explicitly emotional manipulation described above as intent by Kirk, Madsen et al -- evidently cannot distinguish and irrational fear or prejudice from a reasonable concern regarding a potentially destructive outcome for our civilisation. She refuses to address teh issues on the merits, and projects hetefulness where it is not. Those are themselves furter warning signs of how polarisation is being willfully created by the likes of Kirk, Madsen et al, and how if it succeeeds, it will be used to censor -- oops: already ticked off that item on the agenda -- criminalise and then eventually persecute those who stand up for what should be obvious from basic biology of teh sexes and rtequisites of family nurture, much less history. BTW, did you know that in the 1920's, off early Marxist thought on how the family was exploitative, the USSR sought to break down the traditional framework of marriage and family? Then they began to see the chaos that was resulting. They backed off, to a weakened form of state suport for traditional marrage and family life. (To see how weak, imagine you had to get your marriage license from the divorce office, IIRC. That weakeining is a material contribution tot he chaos in Russia once the secret police were put in abeyance for the moment. Under Putin and Putin's face card, that easing up on the reins is of course being "corrected" as we speak.) I trhink that most people do not realise the matches tat atre being played with on this issue of radical redefinition of marriage and family in law. Of those who do know, most are unwilling to be smeared with the kind of slanderous filth that we see above in this thread. And yet, we hear Amos' warning:
Amos 3:7"For the Lord GOD does nothing (F) without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. 8The lion has roared; who will not fear? (G) The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?" Amos 5:10(O) They hate him who reproves(P) in the gate, and they(Q) abhor him who speaks the truth. 11Therefore because you(R) trample on[b] the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, (S) you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. 12For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins— you who afflict the righteous, who(T) take a bribe, and(U) turn aside the needy(V) in the gate. 13Therefore he who is prudent will(W) keep silent in such a time, (X) for it is an evil time. 14(Y) Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD,(Z) the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. 15(AA) Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice(AB) in the gate; (AC) it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph . . . .
We are playing with fire, and the sort of manipulation that creates a foolish consensus in the teeth of the self-evident facts of human nature and the well-known needs of procreation and nurture will lead to a crash if it is not stopped. Let us all read and soberly reflect on Ac 27, thinking about -- not, "after the ball but -- after the crash. The crash of our civilisation of liberty under God. Begun to study Chinese yet? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
#456 Tribune7 I haven’t seen one defender of gay marriage say “I support gay marriage but Apple is wrong in banning the Manhatten Declaration and I call on them to rescind their action.” Apple didn't ban the Manhattan declaration. They just chose not to support it. A corporation has the right to decide which causes it supports. As far as I can see (it is a very long thread), not a soul on this debate has suggested banning the Manhattan declaration or that the signatories do not have a right to express their opinion. All I can see are arguments against some of the proposals in that declaration and other related proposals.markf
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
SAR -- You have neither disputed that you have fear of the radical homosexualist agenda (definition 3) I couldn't find the specific source you were using in the many words above but fearing an specified agenda is the opposite of prejudice -- preconceived opinions, unreasoned feelings etc. -- especially when you can articulate your fears. Here's the def of prejudice from dictionary.com. nor disputed that you intend to impose the same restrictions on an entire group based on the agenda of a few Again the debate isn't about imposing restrictions but about expanding a particular role of government. You seemed unwilling to distill the purpose of marriage to its core -- namely at what point should the state and society become involved in personal relations and why should they do so. If you want to love another woman all your life, fine. In fact, you should do so. You should love everybody. And that of course includes men. And that of course implies babies. Which means the future, which, you hopefully understand is not guaranteed to be good. And sex, btw, while having a connection to love does not equal it. That's a concept 19-year-old-or-so females sometimes have a problem with.tribune7
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Imagine for a moment there is a God. Imagine that God considers homosexual acts to be abhorrent and prohibits them. 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?allanius
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
UB:
The homosexuals I know have never asked me to legitimize their lifestyle.
There is a difference between refusing to legitimize someones lifestyle and actively thwarting their hopes. But, I understand what you are trying to say.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
UB: In response to: >> I disagree that procreation is the primary function of marriage and should not be used as a criteria for permitting marriage. >> You wrote: >> You sure are desperate to move on quickly aren’t you? To hell with any mumbo-jumbo as to the rather highly-confirmed natural function of the apparatus, to hell with whatever sociological stability might be added in the creation of our civilization, to hell with whatever resulting effects are undeniably required for each and every person having the debate – lets get on with some legal-ease to legitimize the direct opposite of all of it. >> Well said. Aptly summarises the attitude and agenda that we see so rampant in our civilisation today. If that agenda is not checked, the consequences -- which have been repeatedly highlighted but ignored -- will be horrendous. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
"At least, Upright Biped understands that he is thwarting the hopes of some of his friends" The homosexuals I know have never asked me to legitimize their lifestyle. They know I am obviously heterosexual and we have a respectful relationship within those limits. CheersUpright BiPed
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Your rhetorical tactics reveal that you are too intelligent to not realise that you are twisting words to try to find any handy objection to avoid acknowledging and turning from slander.
It isn't a hard question. Of the 28 rights that are addressed in the document, in any given society some or all are available to heterosexuals. I understand that you do not feel that homosexuals should have a right to form a family (Principle 24). Of the remaining 27 rights, it seems reasonable that, to the extent that any particular society recognizes those rights, they should be available to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you agree or don't you?San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
SAR: Your rhetorical tactics reveal that you are too intelligent to not realise that you are twisting words to try to find any handy objection to avoid acknowledging and turning from slander. Again, this (the mainstreaming stratagem of Kirk, Madsen, Yogyakarta, the nearest TV news and talkshow channel, most current comedies with a sympathetic victimised "nice" homosexual character, etc etc) is the strategy you are enmeshed in: ________________ >> Borne, 6 above (citing Kupelian’s summary): >>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.” >> Mynym, 127, out of the horse’s mouth so to speak: >> In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image. (After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s By Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :183) >> And, again in 207: >>The appearance of an argument can often aid an emotional appeal for other reasons. [...] Where the target of an emotional appeal is aware of the attempt at manipulation, he will tend to resist it; where he is distracted from the true nature of the appeal by a ‘cover argument,’ the emotional effect, paradoxically, will be all the greater. Thus, an argument can function as a distractor. Our remarks apply primarily to the (intellectually) lower 90% or so of the general population, whose beliefs more or less never alter their emotions. This is largely true of the upper 10%, as well, but, fortunately, not entirely. The highly intelligent sometimes display the capacity, although less often the inclination, to step outside themselves and analyze their feelings, and the causes of their feelings, dispassionately, and this sometimes modulates the feelings themselves. (After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :138) >> Yet again, in 208: >> Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality. (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :152-153) >> __________________ In other words, you are being emotionally manipulated by a strategy that cynically seeks to exploit the emotions of fairness and sympathetic concern of the vast majority of the population. Not, to protect the 1 - 3% of the population who are enmeshed in homosexual attractions and behaviour, who have more than adequate provision in law for their proitection. Not at all, this is to manipulate your and my emotions to create unwitting support of a cynical, radical agenda of a powerful group of elites -- some homosexual, some heterosexual, most atheistical, all committed to the overturning of the foundations of Western Civlisation; regardless of likely consequences. to destroy our civlisation as we know it and have reaped the unprecedented benefits of -- and that is their aim -- these want to elicit our active or at least passive support for an agenda that seeks to overturn the foundational institution of our civilisation without having to answer serious questions on its likely impacts. Namely, they [just like the communists before them -- who they learned from (rules for Radicals often appears in advocacy or even education training course book lists or references), like Saul Alinsky (this is the list of his rules)] -- through manipulating concepts of fairness and equality in a context where precisely the complementarity of male and female is vital for the procreation of the race -- wish to radically redefine marriage. They intentionally want to do so in a way that will implicitly outlaw the Bible-based Christian faith and will censor, criminalise and intimidate by power of law, a great many people of decent intent and conscience. To do that, they pretend that there has been an established pattern that men can marry men and women women, and to object is to be hateful and bigoted. This is slander,and it is intended to set up a situation where outlawing and persecution of Christians will seem to be legitimate, as this is protective against bigoted haters. Such oppression can only be done by deceptive propaganda that manipulates the feelings of those who will not think for themselves, and works by the classic turnabout false accusation propaganda tactic. Namely, accuse those who you are attacking of what you are about to do, or something tantamount to it. So, you falsely appear as the victim resisting attack. that is why the slander you have been carrying out is so dangerous. It is why you need to apologise for it and turn from it. For shame! Good day, madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
#444
I am clearly not as brilliant as Upright BiPed
blush, blush
I do not know the origin of every term I come across.
I hardly ever know the origin of the words I use, I don’t know the origin of the words I am typing right now, but I do know their meaning.
Google was helpful to see if I could determine the full context of its use.
I don’t particularly begrudge anyone wanting to know the origins of words and terms, so don’t sweat it – and I can say that without knowing the origin of the term, or the full context of its use.
I am going to assume that the “observable facts” to which UBP refers are that the penis fits into the vagina. I am aware of this.
blush, blush… wink
My point is that when the term is generally used, it is almost always in the context of arguing against same-sex marriage.
Let me get this straight, your point is that when someone uses the term “complimentarity of the sexes” it’s usually in the context of same sex marriage. Okay, got it. That may be somewhat analogous to the term “the stove is hot” being used to suggest to not put your hand on it.
Furthermore, the basis for that argument is that sex acts in same-sex marriages cannot produce children.
Well, hang on second; not so fast. I am willing to bet good money that when a person is discovering the natural world and first notices the “complimentarity of the sexes” the very last thing they are thinking is “hey, sex acts between same-sex persons don’t result in babies”. Now, of course, who knows exactly what that response is, but I would be willing to suggest it is more likely, in fact perhaps far more likely that the response is something more along the lines of “Oh…that’s-”. The response may even include a completely-natural moment of humility, or perhaps even a raised eyebrow followed by a moment of reflective bewilderment. Some people may even look around in awkwardness to see if anyone is watching what they are thinking. What do you think of this suggestion? If you agree, then what do you think it could mean?
I disagree that procreation is the primary function of marriage and should not be used as a criteria for permitting marriage.
What?!? You sure are desperate to move on quickly aren’t you? To hell with any mumbo-jumbo as to the rather highly-confirmed natural function of the apparatus, to hell with whatever sociological stability might be added in the creation of our civilization, to hell with whatever resulting effects are undeniably required for each and every person having the debate - lets get on with some legal-ease to legitimize the direct opposite of all of it.
What exactly are you looking for in a response?
I predicted a response in my last post; an utter dismissal of the observed facts. The one you gave. Want another prediction? I predict (should I continue to engage this pointless conversation) that any argument which invokes the obvious complimentarity of the sexes will not be seen as sophisticated or nuanced enough to be of any service to the issue at hand. This position will most likely take the form of emotional paraphernalia, or perhaps someone will be bold enough just to submit that natural function, civilization, and life-giving don’t matter – and continue arguing for an exception to them.Upright BiPed
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Quiet ID -- This long thread isn't about reasonable people disagreeing but about fashion-following bigots attempting to squelch debate. I haven't seen one defender of gay marriage say "I support gay marriage but Apple is wrong in banning the Manhatten Declaration and I call on them to rescind their action." But yes, people who are advocates of gay marriage have legitimate points that should be considered and that I myself would probably support.tribune7
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
KF, this is also an honest question. I have pulled the section headings from the Yogyakarta Principles and they are as follows: PRINCIPLE 1: THE RIGHT TO THE UNIVERSAL ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLE 2: THE RIGHTS TO EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLE 3: THE RIGHT TO RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW PRINCIPLE 4: THE RIGHT TO LIFE PRINCIPLE 5: THE RIGHT TO SECURITY OF THE PERSON PRINCIPLE 6: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY PRINCIPLE 7: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY PRINCIPLE 8: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL PRINCIPLE 9: THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT WITH HUMANITY WHILE IN DETENTION PRINCIPLE 10: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT PRINCIPLE 11: THE RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF EXPLOITATION, SALE AND TRAFFICKING OF HUMAN BEINGS PRINCIPLE 12: THE RIGHT TO WORK PRINCIPLE 13: THE RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND TO OTHER SOCIAL PROTECTION MEASURES PRINCIPLE 14: THE RIGHT TO AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING PRINCIPLE 15: THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING PRINCIPLE 16: THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION PRINCIPLE 17: THE RIGHT TO THE HIGHEST ATTAINABLE STANDARD OF HEALTH PRINCIPLE 18: PROTECTION FROM MEDICAL ABUSES PRINCIPLE 19: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION PRINCIPLE 20: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION PRINCIPLE 21: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION PRINCIPLE 22: THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT PRINCIPLE 23: THE RIGHT TO SEEK ASYLUM PRINCIPLE 24: THE RIGHT TO FOUND A FAMILY PRINCIPLE 25: THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC LIFE PRINCIPLE 26: THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN CULTURAL LIFE PRINCIPLE 27: THE RIGHT TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLE 28: THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDIES AND REDRESS PRINCIPLE 29: ACCOUNTABILITY I will certainly grant that it is a very socialistic list well beyond the issue of homosexuality. But, my question is this: To the extent that, in any given society, these principles are granted to heterosexuals, which should not be granted to homosexuals? I get that you object to Principle 24: The right to found a family. Are they any others that you think do not apply to homosexuals when they do apply to heterosexuals?San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
KF:
We await your apology and repudiation of the Kirk- Madsen- Yogyakarta stratagems.
I am neither Kirk or Madsen. Nor am I a signer of the Yogyakarta document. I am under no obligation to apologize for the actions of someone I do not know. As far as repudiation, I stand by all my comments made here and an honest reading of them would answer your question. Your insistent demand that I specifically repudiate them has nothing to do with clarifying my position and everything to do with you insisting I submit to your presumed authority. The same goes with your declaration that I am no longer part of this conversation.
Indeed, I note that you AGAIN have insisted on further propagating the slander of prejudice.
I have provided two definitions of prejudice and contrasted them with your position as stated here.
The Alinsky premise that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other, is a stinking, poisonous and cancerously corrosive and destructive deception from the pit.
And yet you have no problem denying an entire group of people the ability to make their own decisions about their own relationships based on the radical agenda of a few.
For shame!
Indeed.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
SAR: We await your apology and repudiation of the Kirk- Madsen- Yogyakarta stratagems. Until you do so, I will in response simply highlight the pattern of misbehaviour you have undertaken. Indeed, I note that you AGAIN have insisted on further propagating the slander of prejudice. (And that in the teeth of a very specific, detailed repudiation of any such projections of prejudice. In short, on evidence, you are operating from the fallacy of the poisonously ideologised, closed mind. That is, no denial or correction will ever s8uffice to remove the projection, until you acknowledge your wrong on substance and attitude. We cannot help you to do that: God help you do it, you have to look yourself in the mirror and realise your wrong. FYI, the line between good and evil, as Solzhenitsym aptly said, pases not between classed, nations, races or opinions, but right through the human heart. The Alinsky premise that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other, is a stinking, poisonous and cancerously corrosive and destructive deception from the pit.) This is what you are caught up in, need to stop, and need to apologise for: __________________ >> Borne, 6 above (citing Kupelian’s summary): >>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.” >> Mynym, 127, out of the horse’s mouth so to speak: >> In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image. (After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s By Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :183) >> And, again in 207: >>The appearance of an argument can often aid an emotional appeal for other reasons. [...] Where the target of an emotional appeal is aware of the attempt at manipulation, he will tend to resist it; where he is distracted from the true nature of the appeal by a ‘cover argument,’ the emotional effect, paradoxically, will be all the greater. Thus, an argument can function as a distractor. Our remarks apply primarily to the (intellectually) lower 90% or so of the general population, whose beliefs more or less never alter their emotions. This is largely true of the upper 10%, as well, but, fortunately, not entirely. The highly intelligent sometimes display the capacity, although less often the inclination, to step outside themselves and analyze their feelings, and the causes of their feelings, dispassionately, and this sometimes modulates the feelings themselves. (After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :138) >> Yet again, in 208: >> Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality. (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :152-153) >> __________________ For shame! Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
F/N: I find it interesting that it is very hard to find a critically aware assessment or even a good objective definition of "mainstreaming" by a web search. Mainstreaming can best be seen as the toolbox of techniques -- rhetorical, propaganda, focus group leading, local or national/regional or international negotiation, media etc -- that is intended to move a minority view or agenda to become the mainstream, predominant one. As Kirk., Madsen, Yogyakarta etc, and as many advocates for any number of other agendas exemplify, too often the techniques become manipulative, deceptive or exploitive. In direct contrast, I strongly support the principles of Paul:
2 Cor 4:2 . . . we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
kairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
You have forfeited the right of dialogue, though insistent slander.
I have taken two definitions of prejudice (that you provided) and compared them to your own positions as stated in this discussion. You have neither disputed that you have fear of the radical homosexualist agenda (definition 3) nor disputed that you intend to impose the same restrictions on an entire group based on the agenda of a few (definition 4).
Worse, the just above are questions that in fact were anticipated in the clear statement that — specifically rejecting lists of specially protected groups for good reason — all human life should be protected from conception to natural death. No exceptions. No specially protected groups (and no silently de-listed and suppressed groups implicitly licensed as outlaws to be killed as convenient or desired). In short, the very question you ask is loaded with slanderous implications and assumptions, being an example of the fallacy of the complex, loaded question.
No, it was an honest question. If you weren't so caught up in protecting your manly honor from this little girl, you might have seen it as such. But, be that as it may, I thank you for repudiating that action by the UN.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 21

Leave a Reply