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
KF
SAR, maybe it has not dawned on you that you have forfeited the privilege of dialogue, through insistent uncivil conduct.
I am led to understand that the white background signifies moderator privileges. Insofar as your comments appear with a light green background, I have to assume that you don't have the wherewithall to compel said forfeiture by actually actively censoring me. So, until someone comes along to actually enforce your edict of "Hush and run along, little girl, while the adults talk" I am going to continue to participate in the discussion. If you cannot countenance that, feel free to ignore me. That said, I only wish to note that you quoted a dictionary, which provides a number of definitions of "prejudice," the last two of which are:
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Since my participation here is apparently about to come to a end, I would note that these two definitions conform nicely to the one I asked you comment on. And there is nothing I feel needs to be further added.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
F/N: SAR, maybe it has not dawned on you that you have forfeited the privilege of dialogue, through insistent uncivil conduct. But I will give you just one corrective to your attempted definition of prejudice: in prisons, societies -- for the defense of the civil peace -- are obliged to incarcerate and control a significant number of people because they have a common characteristic: conviction and due sentencing for criminal conduct. I suggest you consult a dictionary, here, AmHD:
prej·u·dice (prj-ds) n. 1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea. 2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.prej·u·dice (prj-ds) n. 1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea. 2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
A well-warranted conclusion that an ideology or the agenda of its adherents is dangerous and potentially destructive to civil society may be adverse, but it is not a prejudice, as it is not a judgement before the facts. And, again, the issue is that, amidst a situation of an already deteriorating family environment, we are dealing with a declared agenda that credibly would render the dangerous decline irreversible. I have given you summary reasons, and serious references above, which you have shown no evidence of having seriously read or reflected on. That is sadly telling. If anything, it is the undersigned who has a right to call your intemperate and slanderously uncivil reaction prejudiced. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Onlookers, Let us remind ourselves of the Hunter Madsen strategy that SAR is showing us in action: _______________ 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) >> ________________ Sounds familiar? Sorry, I have had to deal with guilt manipulation cults for decades. The above is the sort of cynical manipulation by the ruthless we are being subjected to, and as we see above, it can work very well, thank you; once people forget to ask and think through some very pointed and pertinent questions. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
---SanAntonioRose: "Ah, yes, a well ordered society. That is one where you, or some of your like minded brethren get to decide what (and who) is best for everyone else, right?" I gather that this is the first time anyone has ever presented to you the idea of a well-ordered society. Did you not know that, from an earthly perspective, this is supposed to be the collective goal for all rational people--to harmonize diversity with unity. If you didn't know that, then don't you think it is a little premature to be cynical about a subject with which you have not yet become acquainted? In truth, there are only two ultimate paradigms for the application of justice: Might makes right and the natural moral law. Because you sneer at the latter, you are, unwittingly, advancing the cause of the former. The question about "who gets to decide" about the ultimate standards for justice is supposed to be vested in the natural moral law to which everyone is accountable, not just a few tyrannical men, who are accountable to no one. Begin by reading, or rereading, my post on the meaning of subsidiarity.StephenB
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
KF, Do you agree with my definition that prejudice is "when anyone seeks to limit the relationships and ability to form contracts of an entire group of people (be they nice or not, radical or not) solely based on some shared characteristic?"San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
SAR: Sadly, you have now stepped utterly beyond the pale of decency and civility. Reasoned questioning, challenge and disagreement are not to be met with slanderous accusation. At least, by the reasonable and decent. You have made your choice by your further insistence on slander rather than reason, now you will have to live with its consequences, as you have exposed more about yourself than you may realise. As, some others have now pointed out. Good day, madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
You’re the only one in here who is unable to have a mature conversation about serious subject matter without resorting to such transparent sophistry
Transparent sophistry or cleverly disguised satire. All of my other comments here have been written with seriousness. I stand by all of them. If my writing style is not to your liking, I am sorry. You aren't the first to blanch at my forthright manner. I suppose that isn't very ladylike of me, is it?San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
SAR@413, You're the only one in here who is unable to have a mature conversation about serious subject matter without resorting to such transparent sophistry (read tasteless jokes) as: "You’ll be one of the first I have report to the re-education camps for your new gay marriage." You should try to approach the subject more like VJTorley, who is respectful and fair in all of his responses, or like Markf. No ones will take you seriously if you're arrogant and snide.HouseStreetRoom
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Your position might be helped if you invoked some imagery of rolling around on the floor crying. After all, it’s all so terrible and victimizing and so on.
Funny. That is how I visualize others (not you) in this discussion with all their talk of their rights being taken away by gay marriage.
In fact, if anything it is more a matter of you imposing your philosophy of hedonism on everyone based on your feelings with little regard for the general welfare.
No one is forcing you to have a gay marriage. You can marry whomever you please. For now, anyways. You'll be one of the first I have report to the re-education camps for your new gay marriage. Bwahahahaha! LOLSan Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
It is obvious you have thought about this a lot. And I don’t mean that in a good way. LOL. I'm sure it's quite funny to the women who come down with STDs as a result. There have been a few studies on it. I suppose it's all a laughing matter to the MTV generation. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. "Hades is the same as Dionysus, in whose honour they go mad and rave."mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Ah, yes, a well ordered society. That is one where you, or some of your like minded brethren get to decide what (and who) is best for everyone else, right? Your position might be helped if you invoked some imagery of rolling around on the floor crying. After all, it's all so terrible and victimizing and so on. Even secularists and totalitarians like the Communists and Nazis have a history of being intolerant of homosexuality once they get into power due to their focus on the collective and health. This is not a matter of Christians imposing their values on others and so on. In fact, if anything it is more a matter of you imposing your philosophy of hedonism on everyone based on your feelings with little regard for the general welfare.mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Tribune:
Nobody is telling you you shouldn’t be free to make your own decisions.
Unless, of course, I choose to make a lifelong commitment to the person I love and that person happens to also be a girl. That is a decision you'll deny me.
Here’s a thought: suppose a particular couple is hosting parties every other weekend that features anonymous anal sex with multiple partners, some of whom go home to unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. Should there be means to shut them down?
It is obvious you have thought about this a lot. And I don't mean that in a good way. LOL.
Why should “official marriage” bring any rights?
Whether it should or it shouldn't is irrelevant. It does.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Notes on effeminacy:
These reports indicate that 46% to 64% of boys with untreated gender identity disorders develop homosexual or bisexual orientation during their adolescence. (Davenport CW: A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Arch Sex Behavior. 15: 511, 1986.) (Green R: The "sissy boy syndrome" and the development of homosexuality, New Haven. Conn. 1987, Yale University Press.) (Zucker K.J: Cross-gender-identified children. In Steiner BW, editor Gender dysphoria: development. research, management New York, 1985, Plenum Press.) (Zuger B: Early effeminate behavior in boys: outcome and significance for homosexuality, J Nerv Ment Dis 172: 90, 1984.) (Zuger B: Is early effeminate behavior in boys early homosexuality? Comp. Psychiatry 29: 509, 1988)
And this brings up an interesting question given that psychologists claim to be able to help with gender identity disorders. If homosexuality is good and desirable as people here claim (but never demonstrate) then should parents be forbidden from seeking such treatments? Members within some associations have tried to pass resolutions which define therapy for gender identity issues as the equivalent of child abuse, after all. But this doesn't seem to be an issue of actual knowledge about anything. For most posting here it seems to be about their emotional conditioning and that is all. It's illogical. That's why if one repeats the same exact logic back to them in the reverse they will reject it. Kirk and Madsen note that a more effective technique for dealing with those of limited intelligence is to merely keep a conversation going and in the process their emotional state tends to alter simply because you are taking the time to converse with them. But that only applies if you are interested in using conditioning as a means toward political ends instead of treating the truth as an end in itself.mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
SAR Free to make their own decisions, right or wrong. Nobody is telling you you shouldn't be free to make your own decisions. What the debate is about is that some don't want anybody telling them what is right or wrong, or good or bad. So long as they don’t harm anyone else (and we have extensive criminal laws spelling out what that is), it is NOYB. Here's a thought: suppose a particular couple is hosting parties every other weekend that features anonymous anal sex with multiple partners, some of whom go home to unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. Should there be means to shut them down? If you don’t want the government telling you what to think or how to live, . . . But you're the one who wants to bring the government into this, remember? What do you think civil marriage is? :-) So, the other half of marriage is that society gives certain rights in exchange for the official marriage. Why should "official marriage" bring any rights?tribune7
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Ah, yes, a well ordered society. That is one where you, or some of your like minded brethren get to decide what (and who) is best for everyone else, right? Freedom is slavery!San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
When anyone seeks to limit the relationships and ability to form contracts of an entire group of people (be they nice or not, radical or not) solely based on some shared characteristic... So I take it that you must be against discriminating against promiscuous people. They're nice people, by the way. I know a nice promiscuous person and can't you just feel the nicety and tolerance of that? It's interesting that the MTV generation is so easily swayed by identity politics. ...then they shouldn’t be surprised when the subject of prejudice comes up. You shouldn't be surprised if the subject of stupidity comes up if you're going to equate "sexual minorities" with the civil rights movement and racial minorities. What surveys show that African Americans have shifted their racial identity over their life-span at rates of well over %50? Ironically, if there is an immutable group called gay people then it is also among the best educated (rates of college degree %60) and wealthiest (check marketing surveys) groups around. This is not evidence of victimization, despite the skill that those with effeminate tendencies seem to have when it comes to propaganda. I'm aware that many have been conditioned to feel that basic forms of pattern recognition are the equivalent of stereotype and some may even be stupid and ignorant enough to believe that it's the moral equivalent of racism. Yet the reality is:
Most sissies will grow up to be homosexuals, and most gay men were sissies as children... Despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented, and significant finding in the entire field of sexual orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology. (Queer Science by Simon LeVay (The MIT Press: 1996) :166)
One can only wonder what the MTV generation would be saying if fat people (another minority being denied their rights and so on) demonstrated the same sort of skill with victimization propaganda. They'd probably be dumb enough to not only insist that the military change but to treat the ability to serve in the military as some sort of civil right, the denial of which would be the moral equivalent of racism.mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
---tribune7 to SanAntonioRose: "What you and the others seem to be advocating is no different that claiming society must not tell a young man — or woman — to indulge in whatever urge he or she happens to be feeling at a particular moment. ---SanAntonioRose: "Congratulations. You have defined freedom." No, what he has described is "license," not "freedom." Your inability to make the distinction defines your many misapprehensions about what constitutes a well ordered society.StephenB
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
...shouldn’t be surprised when the subject of prejudice comes up. Prejudice? You have yet to build the basis of your argument. You can't use that word until you deal with the issue.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
As a black man, I have to take it as a very serious and wounding insult to be insistently, willfully, slanderously and falsely accused of prejudice for the thought crime of asking pertinent and serious questions and raising pertinent concerns; instead of having such questions soberly addressed. I and other members of my race are all too familiar with such tactics, and where they lead.
When anyone seeks to limit the relationships and ability to form contracts of an entire group of people (be they nice or not, radical or not) solely based on some shared characteristic, then they shouldn't be surprised when the subject of prejudice comes up. And I suppose that is why I am most disappointed in you, KF. If anyone should understand the role of "morals" rhetoric in the oppression of an entire group of people, it would be you.
Such incivility should stop; now.
I couldn't have said it better myself.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Notice the lie -- yes, a willful and slanderous deception that one refuses to correct in the teeth of cogent contrary evidence is a lie -- that those who object to the radical agenda of homosexualisation of marriage are being accused of being unable to see homosexuals as human beings? Sorry, this is simply and willfully false. I and many others have no problems in seeing and relating to such groups of people, all people, and ourselves as finite, fallible, morally fallen and sometimes ill-willed or outright deceived or misled people. So, we know that the first thing is to beware of getting important and delicate things wrong. The issue is not whether homosexuals are fully human, or are nice or not -- most are (most of the time), some few are not, like any other group of people you care to name. That is an irrelevancy. the issue is that a radical change to the foundational institution of any community -- the family and its core, marriage -- is being undertaken. Unless it can be reasonably shown that such changes are going to do more good than harm, they should not be attempted. Further to this, there is a lot of reason and there is a significant and growing body of evidence that the proposed change will be damaging, not an improvement to an already bad situation. Notice: that evidence and reasoned, principled concern is not beingf addressed on the mertis, but isntead those who raise legitimate concerns are being vilified, even demonised. (As a black man, I have to take it as a very serious and wounding insult to be insistently, willfully, slanderously and falsely accused of prejudice for the thought crime of asking pertinent and serious questions and raising pertinent concerns; instead of having such questions soberly addressed. I and other members of my race are all too familiar with such tactics, and where they lead. Such incivility should stop; now. Since we have already seen the willful refusal to apologise for such misbehaviour, I simply point out that to refuse to cease and desist from such tactics underscores the destructive nature of the advocacy we are seeing, here and in the wider civilisation.) The saddest part of the above, is that-- thanks to the cynically calculated Hunter-Madsen "desensitise-jam out-convert" propaganda strategy [cf Borne at 6 above for starters, here, then VJT at 12, and Mynym at 127 and 207] -- public discussion of an attempted radical change to the most foundational institutions in our civilisation has been so deeply and willfully poisoned and polarised that I think someone like SAR may not even realise that she is spouting a slanderous, distractive and irrelevant propaganda talking point. Let us therefore draw the obvious conclusion: the radical advocates have no serious case on the merits. We saw that when they could not provide a serious explanation for why marriage could be willy-nilly redefined to suit their agenda. We saw it when they could not account for why they want to claim that to so redefine marriage and access to it is a "right." (Indeed, they have been unable to answer to the point that marriage to be marriage it is a covenant entered into freely, so it is never a right. Nor can they show that the complementarity of the sexes and the functions of procreation and child nurture are not so essential to the future of society that marriage inherently must be based on the heterosexual bond.) When addressing the issue that a right is a binding moral claim, one that is objectively compelling, we found that we are dealing with adherents or supporters of a worldview, evolutionary materialism, that undermines the force of ought. So, it is amoral and turns right into a question of power and manipulation in society: "might makes right." So, now, let us hear and heedthe warning of David Kupelian in his The Marketing of Evil, as ciged by Borne at 6 above:
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.”
We have been warned, and we have seent he concerns in that warning play out right before our eyes. Now, what will we do about it? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Checking back in...I see that SAR still isn't freed up enough to deal with the issue. (snore)Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Tribune7 @ 395:
SAR — And, as we go forward, each generation will have less and less fear of homosexuals and accept them for who they are rather than who we would want them to be. You are reading things into what people write that they aren’t saying and this seems to be a common trait among those who are taking your position. I didn’t see any fear of homosexuals expressed by KF or VT, so it seems that the generation in which they are accepted as individuals is theirs.
Their position is that acceptance of homosexuals in general and gay marriage in specific is part of an agenda to destroy the nuclear family, remove their rights of conscience and free speech and to have the state take their children in order to have them raised in a "politically correct" fashion thus leading to the complete breakdown of society into a state of moral confusion. You don't see fear in that? I see so much fear there that I hope they carry a change of clothes with them (just a little joke, I don't mean it literally LOL)
What I do find puzzling is the inability of those taking your side to see homosexuals as people i.e. individual human beings. It strikes me that you see them as some sort of exotic group that you feel you can put in a zoo akin to a conservation crusade.
That is completely backwards.Because gays are more open/out today, it is my generation that does see them as individuals. Mainly because we knew them as friends and classmates long before we knew they were gay. It isn't my generation that sees dark, authoritarian conspiracies in homosexuals wanting to live their lives free of ostracism and judgemental busybodies.
What you and the others seem to be advocating is no different that claiming society must not tell a young man — or woman — to indulge in whatever urge he or she happens to be feeling at a particular moment.
Congratulations. You have defined freedom. People should be free to live their lives as they feel comfortable. Free to associate and forming relationships with the people they want to. Free to make their own decisions, right or wrong. So long as they don't harm anyone else (and we have extensive criminal laws spelling out what that is), it is NOYB. If you don't want the government telling you what to think or how to live, why are you so intent on imposing the same type of control on others that you don't approve of? As far as my view of marriage, I would guess it has two parts. First, it is a way which two people who wish to make a commitment to each other can do so. Of course, marriage isn't required to make such a commitment. I am sure we all know a straight, unmarried couple that has lived together for a time longer than Rush Limbaugh's first three marriages combined (3, 7, and 10 years respectively. LMBO) So, the other half of marriage is that society gives certain rights in exchange for the official marriage. Rights like inheritance and making medical decisions when the other person is incapacitated, to give two examples.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
---SanAntonioRose: "You didn’t really answer the question as to how a traditional family is able to stop the immense power of a state, but I suppose this is close enough." The principle of subsidiarity is an organizing principle which holds that all matters concerning productivity, justice, and public policy ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. When that principle is applied, a more just, well-ordered society emerges because power proceeds from the bottom up, beginning with the nuclear family, proceeding through local and state governments, and ending at the federal level. When that order is reversed, that is, when the state is calling the shots, freedom is compromised. Only when the nuclear family is in tact, and only when the state respects the natural moral law as the arbiter for all disputes can that order be preserved. A well-ordered society is one in which the natural moral law shapes civil law and in which the nuclear family is the strategic power base. ---"So, it is your position that gay people are of low character and any family unit they may form is of lower quality?" Gay "units" are not nuclear families and cannot, therefore, promote the natural moral law, much less can they influence the state to maintain it, for the simple reason that they don't believe in it. Thus, they bring disorder to the table, not order.StephenB
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
What I do find puzzling is the inability of those taking your side to see homosexuals as people i.e. individual human beings. It strikes me that you see them as some sort of exotic group that you feel you can put in a zoo akin to a conservation crusade. The irony is that if homosexuality becomes common enough that people treat it as they would any other human behavior their values will have already shifted toward hedonism to the point that it will no longer matter. Eventually it will be said that there's nothing wrong with choosing to be gay anyway. In fact, some already say it. After all, you have to wonder why people would want to avoid choosing homosexuality or avoid teaching children about it and so on if it is as good and desirable as propagandists make it out to be.mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Zephyr said:Hypothetically if any person were to remark to me face to face, “hey zephyr, if ID isn’t Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, explain this EXACT thread then at a so-called leading ID blog. This is perhaps the most ignorant comment yet. Not treating homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality is perhaps the least provnincial or sectarian moral issue one could pick out of many, yet you portray it as the exact opposite. I.e., only conservative Christians in America oppose it and this proves how provincial and sectarian all opposition is? How utterly ignorant, homosexuality is still criminalized in most nations and American Christians are perhaps more tolerant of it than most other people in history. Even when atheistic or pagan ideologies like Communism or Nazism have been established they have not treated homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. There are many reasons for this and few of them have anything to do with the rather ridiculous beliefs typical to the MTV generation in America:
People are clannish. They distrust, fear, and even hate those that aren’t part of their clan. And that fear leads them to ostracize those outsiders. But, each successive generation seems to rise more and more above such fear.
That's the only reason that the majority of people throughout history have discriminated against homosexuality in favor of heterosexuality? Who would have thought.... and there's nothing intrinsically complementary about the sexes or things like fathering and mothering or the pan-cultural reality of anything else having to do with the biosocial reality of sex. No, instead the MTV generation in America has been conditioned to know that it's all just a matter of outcasts, victimization and so on.mynym
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
PS: SAR, with all due respect (and despite the congratulations of the evolutionary materialists happy to have you champion their views), accusations of prejudice do not answer to the serious questions on the table. Again, have you read the Manhattan Declaration? The Yogyakarta critique? The relevant cases listed in the thread above that show that he issues are not just theoretical? The original post, which is responding to a case of censorship in defence of a radical agenda? If so, kindly explain to me how you can justify dismissing the concerns and issues raised -- including the apparently inescapable amorality of the underlying worldview agenda, evolutionary materialism, which has pushed a "might makes right" ethics into dominance in the public square -- on terms of people being "clannish" or prejudiced? (Do you not see that hat is a slanderous dismissal, especially given what HAS been put on the table?) Something is seriously wrong here. Perhaps, indeed, it would be good for you to explain the nature and purpose of marriage, in your view, as Trib has asked.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
SAR -- And, as we go forward, each generation will have less and less fear of homosexuals and accept them for who they are rather than who we would want them to be. You are reading things into what people write that they aren't saying and this seems to be a common trait among those who are taking your position. I didn't see any fear of homosexuals expressed by KF or VT, so it seems that the generation in which they are accepted as individuals is theirs. What I do find puzzling is the inability of those taking your side to see homosexuals as people i.e. individual human beings. It strikes me that you see them as some sort of exotic group that you feel you can put in a zoo akin to a conservation crusade. What you and the others seem to be advocating is no different that claiming society must not tell a young man -- or woman -- to indulge in whatever urge he or she happens to be feeling at a particular moment. Frankly, I think indifference is a worse sin than hate.tribune7
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
MF: I have a moment. I glanced, and see a further remark is in order. Before claiming anything relating to a moral issue is correct, as a trained philosopher, you need to first ground morality. As was pointed out in response to your attempt to trivialise the issue of the radical relativism and amorality of evolutionary materialism, leading to a public ethics of might makes right. I trust that your second attempt will be better than the one you have linked in your blog. Remember, what is being played with here is the fundamental social institution, marriage and family. G'day, again GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
San Antonio Rose, what do you think is the point of marriage?tribune7
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
SAR I would like to add my congratulations to those of zephyr on your comments. They are clear, concise and, of course, correct.markf
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 21

Leave a Reply