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
One other thing. You say:
The resultant destruction of family — already well under way, this would simply make it effectively irreversible — will lead to the emergence of a culture of the atomised and disoriented dependent on state and street for substitute family and individual identity.
Here in the US, the breakdown of the family, particularly in urban areas, has more to do with poverty and lack of stable economic opportunity. Blaming it on the gays is, as my dad would say, weak sauce. TTYL!San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
KF, Before I head off for the day, I need to quickly note that you didn't answer what gay marriage would do to your specific marriage. Unless, you meant this:
this is a legal agenda that will turn ther police into spies on your family life, wil requre removal of reference to Mr and Mrs X from textbooks, will force churches, schools, hospitals, businesses etc etc into all sorts of things against heir conscience
So, your real issue seems to be censorship and forcing of religious organizations to recognize gay marriage. If gay marriage could be accomplished while allowing you to continue to freely moralize and allowing churches and other such religious organizations to honor their policies and statements of faith regarding homosexuality, would your objections go away?San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
SAR: I am not VJT and I am not basing my argument on his, so my point stands independent of his. I repeat: marriage is based on the complementarity of the sexes, reflecting our Creation order; and as a social institution exists to procreate and nurture the race. It also provides mutual comfort and support to the married, as I can see from my parents as they move into the ninth decade of life. The marriage of my parents [primary and secondary . . . a childless couple], or of my neighbour, a lifelong spinster who married a man whose wife on her deathbed suggested her husband look up the old campus days friend -- it was a famous newspaper search and marriage in Jamaica -- pose no threat to family and culture. The radical agenda to homosexualise marriage does, as further documented in the just linked. Remember, this is a legal agenda that will turn ther police into spies on your family life, wil requre removal of reference to Mr and Mrs X from textbooks, will force churches, schools, hospitals, businesses etc etc into all sorts of things against heir conscience, and will radically restructure society; and not for the good. The resultant destruction of family -- already well under way, this would simply make it effectively irreversible -- will lead to the emergence of a culture of the atomised and disoriented dependent on state and street for substitute family and individual identity. It will put the present street gang subculture on steroids. I have already had to live with my family in a state that reflected this breakdown, and I do not want to go back there, thank you. I moved my family to a state living under the threat of an active explosive volcano in preference. Think about that, please. The rich living in walled, gated communities will be able to save themselves for a tie, but that will not be true for the rest of us. So, please think seriously about where our civilisation is headed, and where the radical advocates of all sorts of things will further take it. Ten, try to work for sound reformation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
In my example at the end of comment #289 above I meant Huntingdon's disease, not Hodgkinson's disease.markf
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
KF. That doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, VJT's entire argument is based on the idea that heterosexual marriage is inherently procreative. And that holds regardless of the participants fertility because, presumably, in some future sci-fi world doctors may figure out how to reverse those physical problems. So, when you say:
Elderly married couples are just that: married.
whether you know it or not, you are admitting that marriage is not about procreation. Second, for my generation, the sexual chaos is promiscuity, be it gay or straight. Indeed, one of the thoughts expressed more than once in this discussion, is that gays are immoral because they are promiscuous and experience a much higher rate of STDs. So, now when gays agree with you that a promiscuous lifestyle is unfulfilling and dangerous and want to form stable, monogamous relationships, you'll deny them that to. But, let me ask you one question: let's say every nation on earth legalizes gay marriage. You would have us believe that will destroy traditional marriage. So, tell me what will happen to your marriage? No abstract moralizing . Your specific marriage.San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Berceuse -- I don’t know what you’re getting at, tribune, The point I'm getting at is that geniuses often suffer and those who march to their own drummer always do. If society had told Tchaikovsky it was good to be gay, I don't think he would have been any happier.tribune7
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
F/N: Tozzi's critique of the so-called Yogyakarta Principles, will expose the implications of the international lawfare agenda of the radical homosexualist advocates. Notice, the conference in question was carried out under the general umbrella of the UN.kairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
SAR: Elderly married couples are just that: married. The proposal by the homosexualist radicals would destroy the legal framework that allows us to restore marriage from the current sexual chaos that engulfs our civilisation. That is a considerable difference in significance. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
VJT:
(8) There is something in an act of love between a man and a woman that is capable of signifying lifelong, monogamous love: namely, the fact that it is capable of procreating a child, who thrives best in a family where the love between the parents is lifelong and monogamous.
....
(12) No human being is by nature incapable of (i) participating in an act of love between a man and a woman, and (ii) giving him/herself in a way that signifies lifelong, monogamous love. (Impediments aising from disease or infertility are physical but not natural impediments, as removal of these impediments – e.g. by a super-skilled surgeon – would not alter who I am as an individual.
What about elderly people? My great aunt Connie got married in her early 70s, long after she went through menopause. For your argument to work one of two things would have to be true: 1. Menopause is not natural, which is most certainly is. 2. In some future fantasy world, doctors figure out how to reverse menopause (and presumably hysterectomies), so straight couples in their 80s can have children. Honestly, people that old having children is also rebellion against how we were designed.San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
MF: Before making moral judgements, could you kindly justify their binding character? (I note here on your subjectivist remarks, yesterday.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
PS: Z, a reasonable person will refrain from or apologise for misrepresenting or slandering people. And you have misrepresented the Manhattan Declaration, its signatories, and any number of people above.kairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Zephyr: Pardon an even more direct observation:
You are, unfortunately, exemplifying precisely why the Manhattan Declaration is timely and important as a PRINCIPLED defense of life, marriage and liberty in our time.
Your words above -- notice, how you have again failed to speak to the matter on its merits but essay instead to categorise, name-call and dismiss people you don't know and whose arguments you have not seriously read much less addressed [and I am someone who has lost at least one homosexual friend to suicide and come from a region where the implications of family breakdown (by imposition of slavery for centuries) are an everyday reality] -- also illustrate aptly why my estimate of the likely fate of our civilisation at this point is: the disease is terminal. Onlookers, I suggest you take a moment to read Ac 27, as a parable of how democratic polities can go fatally wrong when people refuse to face unwelcome truth and dismiss those who dare to raise it. If there is any hope, the underlying assumption in Z's argument is that we are morally obligated, i.e. we are under moral law. That implication calls for the proper explanation of such a status; namely, that we are morally governed creatures, living in a world established by a good and concerned Creator, the Law-giver. And, that the law -- the moral law of our nature as morally governed creatures -- is evident from the design of our world, our bodies and our minds and consciences. Unless key sectors of our civilisation recognise this implication and accept it, we are heading for a crash. In this case, given the havoc wreaked by a rising, broad-based wave of sexual chaos and associated marital and familial disintegration, it is utter folly to legally lock out the possibility for restoration of sound marriage and family life patterns. And, to do so in the name of "rights" is even worse folly, though it is of course quite persuasive rhetoric for those who have not thought about what is a right, and how it is to be warranted. Once such is thought through, rights will be seen to be moral claims based on our nature and evident purpose, which is of course in part male and female, with an obvious purpose. There, therefore, can be no right to be free to marry a person of the same sex. Just as, by its very nature, marriage requires consent of an appropriate partner, so we have no right to marry. And, the community has a legitimate interest in the matter, as stable marriages and families are a survival issue. So, law in response to radical advocacy, that reinforces the historic understanding of marriage and family, is entirely appropriate. Never mind the incendiary, polarising rhetoric of the radicals who hope to overthrow the longstanding consensus of humanity, through specious rhetoric. (Details have already been given above, so pardon the summary. The very fact that such is now deemed controversial, is a proof of how bad the case is for our civilisation at the hands of amoral, evolutionary materialist elites whose premise is that might makes "right" and "rights" are a matter of the balance of power for the moment, so why not use slander, polarise and rule tactics if you can get away with it.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
vj #281 No one can accuse of not having thought about this issue! Before looking at some details of your argument, I want stress a point I have made before. You require an abstract and complicated argument with no less than 13 paragraphs to prove that homosexual sex is wrong. This is not like murder or robbery or torture - where there is an obvious victim that has been forced or duped into suffering. Intelligent though you are, you also capable of error. Suppose you have made mistake in your argument and actually homosexual sex is morally acceptable? Please think seriously about this possibility. After all there are many ardent Christians and even ID supporters on this blog who think who see nothing wrong with homosexual sex. If you have made an error, then you have accidentally done something rather appalling. You have a maligned a whole community but it goes much further than that. I am sure you personally recommend no more than trying to persuade homosexuals to give up sex. But a culture of condemnation has broader consequences. In the past in Western countries this community has been mocked, imprisoned, driven to suicide and murdered. In many parts of the world it still illegal with horrific punishments, including in a few cases the death penalty. All of this abuse is justified on the assumption that homosexual sex is wrong. The situation is very much better in Western countries than it was - but this improvement required recognition that homosexual relationships and sex was morally acceptable. The Manhatten declaration and those who promote it are in danger of reversing the trend. Now for some more detailed points about your argument. 1) I am very confused about intimate acts and "total self-giving". (a) What do you mean by self-giving? You make sex sound like a sacrifice. It is mutually enjoyable and sometimes very emotionally fulfilling experience and one does one's best to make sure your partner also enjoys it - but I am not aware of anyone giving anything (except perhaps some semen). (b) Even I could understand what you mean - it is not clear why intimate acts should require total self-giving. I think this paragraph is your justification: As regards (a): in an intimate act, you give the other person your whole body. That’s all of you: it’s your whole self. You can’t give any more than all of you But here you seem to be saying that "total self-giving" necessarily happens in an intimate act. In which case there is no moral question to be resolved. If this is true then if we indulge in an intimate act then total self-giving takes place whether wish it or not. Or perhaps you are saying that acts without "total self-giving" are not truly intimate? It is all very confusing. 2) Then you begin the argument itself. There are many things I would like to dispute but here are two highlights. A homosexual act is an intimate act. Thus if the participants in the act are not deluded about their nature as embodied beings, they intend this act to be an act of total self-giving. They are very likely as confused as I am about "total self-giving". I would imagine most of them just intend to have a good time. An act which is by its very nature incapable of realizing the intentions of the actor is a wrong act. Do you mean morally wrong? I absolutely refute this. It would mean every act of crazy heroism against impossible odds was morally wrong. Finally you write: "I agree with you that there if one were to approve of a man and a woman getting married who have deliberately rendered themselves incapable of having a child, one would have to approve of gay sex. I approve of neither practice." Imagine a man and woman are very much in love. The woman discovers she has Hodgkinson's disease. So they decide to get married but they will not have a child (who might inherit this awful condition) instead they plan to adopt. Before they marry they render themselves incapable of having a child by vasectomy or hysterectomy. Do you really disapprove of this?markf
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus your condescension would grate, if I took your prattle seriously. I don't. Apologise for what? Offending homophobes who pretend they are not? If I don't apologise for offending your uh sensibilities what are you going to do? Send in the Inquisition, call the cops? kairosfocus: "Then, please look carefully at the MD on the issue of liberty and how the homosexualist agenda is an enemy of such freedom of conscience. Can you show that hat concern is misplaced or mere prejudice?" If you fail to see that "concern" over "the homosexualist agenda" [sic] is misplaced and prejudicial in principle, and you clearly do fail to see it and always will do, that's not my problem, it's yours. Here kairosfocus I will save you having to post up again.. Apologise, apologise for offending those who oppose "the homosexualist agenda" zephyr: nozephyr
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
PS: Pardon a footnote, which is simply here as a balancing remark, i.e a threadjacking will not be entertained. Ms Phillips in your cite is plainly over-reading the issue. Homosexuals are not subject to extrajudicial or judicial execution in say the Caribbean, which is listed by the names of several territories, and from where I write; most violence against homosexuals in this part of the world is from their fellow homosexuals; though there have been occasions of vigilantism and assault that are wrong. And, to infer from that homosexuality is not listed or delisted in a list of examples of specific kinds of extrajudicial killings is tantamount to approval of such killings is itself an overreach that is slanderous. A far more reasonable context for understanding would be that -- while there are indeed troubling cases and countries where homosexuals or suspected homosexuals have been abused or murdered by state agents -- the listing of homosexuality has become a tool used to advance the claim that to object to homosexuality or to have laws that forbid certain sexual behaviours often associated with homosexuality is hate and even incitement to murder. the reaction to de-listing is telling on that. (The onward listed Huff Po article is so grossly slanderous, inaccurate and over the top that it raises serious questions about Ms Phillips' reasoning on this matter.) Let us get the matter in cotnext, Wha tis really needed is the commitment of all nations to protect life from conception to natural death -- which is exactly what the Manhattan Declaration explicitly advocates. The provision of lists of preferred classes to be protected actually undermines the general principle: life, being a sacred gift from God, is to be protected, and innocent life therefore may not be forfeit. (And BTW, FYI: I am currently involved in an effort that inter alia seeks to put just that protection of life from conception to natural death into a national constitution.)kairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
StephenB, you write: "All Christian Churches without exception agreed that all these acts [if brought to completion] are immoral until 1930, when it became fashionable to flow downward with the stream and mimic the secular culture." I'm not talking about Christian churches, I'm talking about how such views supposedly derive (as you claimed) from "natural law." I'm talking about the state, a secular institution. My disagreement with the Manhattan Declaration has nothing to do with its views on theology, most of which I share. They have to do with its view the state. I think we do ourselves no favors when we expect the state to enforce our views on sexual morality. Society is reprobate through and through. It will not reform itself through secular institutions. Better to let the state reveal its corrupt nature so that the church can stand in marked contrast. (For the record, in case anybody cares, I think the sexual practices I listed earlier are permissible within marriage.)QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Zephyr: Pardon some fairly frank and direct remarks, but he tone and substance of your own comment just above -- an out and out accusation of dishonesty -- warrants such. I therefore think you need to take a careful look in the mirror, and to actually show us that you have read, understood and can thoughtfully respond to the Manhattan Declaration on the merits. (Onlookers, the exchanges yesterday were triggered by my clipping out several excerpts from 218 - 221.) Take particular time to look at remarks on the general breakdown of marriage and the implications of institutionalising homosexualisation of marriage under colour of law, with the issues that directly emerge on freedom of conscience, religion, expression and to make a legitimate living. Your dismissive attitude and remarks just above underscore the precise concerns the declarants have highlighted. Your first two paragraphs are utterly revealing on the strawmanisation and well poisoning you have imposed on the discussion, and I will make some specific -- and pardon their frankness -- notes on points: ________________ mikev6, markf, zeroseven and others here who like me don’t give a flying fig what gay men do in their privacy of their own homes --> strawman: the issue was not what acts homosexuals may do at home or in anaonymous bath-houses etc (which BTW are often provably unhealthy and a public health risk; and especially fellatio is as much at stake here as anal penetration . . . cf the over-representation of homosexuals in several key STD statistics, with AIDS leading the list, in the context of the degree of promiscuity and attempted redefinition of "monogamy" that are all too typical) but the imposition of a redefinition of the fundamental institution of society, marriage and family, and what that implies. --> further to this, the context for this thread is the evident imposition of censorship to block a protest on principle, driven by a homosexualist advocacy group and do not think that homosexual practices are going to lead to the collapse of America (other things might though): --> repetition of the strawman on acts. It is not acts but legal agendas that are at issue, as the MD explicitly states.Cf 220 above. --> If you had taken a moment to read even the excerpts, it would have been obvious that the declarants are pointing to the disintegration of marriage and family as the trigger for social collapse, and highlight the attempted homosexualisation of marriage as a roadblock to correcting the problem it doesn’t matter what you write at all, the self-righteous “moralists” here aren’t paying any attention. --> an ad hominem laced slander, in fact the above thread is replete with very careful principled arguments, starting with those of VJT --> Further, the tone of the comment is exactly a case of the sort of judgemental and dismissive attitude that it claims to object to --> Further, this is a case of turnabout -- and manifestly false -- accusation of closed mindedness. They are true believers and that is that. --> Some sarcasm is well-warranted,a s that is probably the only way to get the point home: and of course you and your ilk have cornered the market on the truth and are not committed to any particular view of reality which you think is well-warranted, in the teeth of objections made by others . . . --> Pardon the painful bite of that, but that was to make the point that there are two ways to look at this matter of being a "true believer" They think they have Jesus and God on their side, --> This is a manifest strawman: the issue would be: not whether God is with us, but whether we as penitent sinners under reformation are increasingly with him. As tested by principles such as the truth in love, purity and humility, but without compromise with evil. --> Further, you can see that the issue that we are morally obligated creatures (something you imply at every turn) has the implication that we are under moral law appropriate to our nature, thence a Law-giver. --> thus, we are credibly morally governed creatures in a creation, and subject to the Creator, who is also evident from the design of the creation all around us. --> that Christians specifically identify that Creator with the God revealed in the Bible, and in the life, service, teachings, power, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as witnessed in the first instance by 500 who could not be turned,and all in fulfillment of specific prophecies of centuries standing, means that we do not simply blindly believe but have a context of warrant. [Cf linked at 221 above for a 101 survey] --> You may disagree with that warrant, and are free to state your case, but please be honest enough to acknowledge that Christians do make an objective case for why they accept that God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to himself. and everything follows from that. --> this is an unwarranted accusation of closed minded question begging, kindly see the just above and the linked from 221 What’s really galling is the lack of honesty about their prejudice though. --> Prejudice means that one judges before warranting the judgmernt. Christians have masde it plain over 2,000 years that we have warranted our basic case. You may disagree, but that such warrant exists is an objective fact. --> In the more specific conrtext, the rejection of the attemntped homosexualisation of marriage and family is not a matter of impositon before warrant but of csareful examination of issues, as precisely the declarants exempligfy. --> I observe a very harsh judgmenet of dishonesty being made without providing adequate warrant, so the issue is: will you kindly look in the mirror then have the grace to apologise? --> Then, please look carefully at the MD on the issue of liberty and how the homosexualist agenda is an enemy of such freedom of conscience. Can you show that hat concern is misplaced or mere prejudice? If not, you owe a second apology. __________________ See the problem? G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
mikev6, markf, zeroseven and others here who like me don't give a flying fig what gay men do in their privacy of their own homes and do not think that homosexual practices are going to lead to the collapse of America (other things might though): it doesn't matter what you write at all, the self-righteous "moralists" here aren't paying any attention. They are true believers and that is that. They think they have Jesus and God on their side, and everything follows from that. What's really galling is the lack of honesty about their prejudice though. Homosexuality has been associated several times over with every perversity they can imagine - pedophilia, bestiality, rape. Homosexuals and those who dare support their civil rights and liberties have been equated with Nazism (by mynym) and the Taliban (way up above), which is beyond perverse and unhinged. Homosexuality has been called evil, and a factor that causes the decline and decay of our culture and at the same time we get the 'some of my best friends are gay I got nothing against them personally' prattle. IMPLICIT in the unhinged breezy associations of homosexual sex with illegal sexual acts like pedophilia, bestiality, rape; calling it evil and the like (at least one poster regretting that it is legal), is that it should be made illegal - that is homosexual sexual relations. So then following from that, should homosexuals be given jail time, or as mikev6 puts it, house arrest, or maybe just a hefty fine? What if they can't pay the fine, jail time then? Or do you think they should be allowed to break the law with impunity? I know you won't answer these questions, when mikev6 asked them, they weren't answered either. Here is some news that those puffing on about the Manhattan Declaration and how immoral homosexuality is, can simply choose to ignore. From the stirling Melanie Phillips in the UK (no PC liberal, no Darwinian either for that matter). http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6520779/latest-un-shocker-its-ok-to-kill-gays.thtml From the link: ----------------------------- "Last week, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a special resolution addressing extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. The resolution affirms the duties of member countries to protect the right to life of all people with a special emphasis on a call to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. The resolution highlights particular groups historically subject to executions including street children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority communities, and, for the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation as a basis on which some are targeted for death. "The tiny West African nation of Benin (on behalf of the UN's African Group) proposed an amendment to strike sexual minorities from the resolution. The amendment was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent. "A collection of notorious human rights violators voted for the amendment including Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Eritrea, North Korea, Iran (didn't Ahmadinejad tell the world there were no gays in Iran?), Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. "Add to this Bahamas, Belize (where you get 10 years for being gay), Jamaica (10 years of hard labor), Grenada (10 years), Guyana (life sentence), Saint Kitts and Nevis (10 years), Saint Lucia (10 years), Saint Vincent (10 years), South Africa (Apartheid? What apartheid?), and Morocco (ruled by a gay monarch!). They are all on the list of nations that do not think execution of gays and lesbians is worthy of condemnation or investigation. (The full vote tally is published beneath this column.) To its shame, Colombia was among the 16 nations who abstained. "Those against the amendment include every European nation present, all Scandinavian countries, India, Korea, most of Latin America, all of North America, and only one Middle Eastern nation: Israel. In most countries in the Middle East, it is a crime to be gay--in some, like Saudi Arabia, it is punishable by beheading and in others, like Iran, by hanging. "The UN has a remarkable track record of doing virtually nothing when presented with mass killings or genocide. ‘Never again!’ was the cry after the holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed a dozen more never agains with strong condemnation from the UN coming after the corpses pile up. A resolution of the sort that was voted on in the General Assembly is significant for its clarity of message: ‘It’s okay to kill the gays.’" ------------------------zephyr
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Shogun: The terminology "religious rules" is loaded and misleading. We have a strong clue in the world without that it is designed, not "designoid." (See how Dawkins' attempted substitute term implies that there is indeed credible evidence pointing to design? Evidence that is so unwelcome that a question-begging "substitute" term is being proposed?) Similarly, we find ourselves morally obligated; which is evident from simply how we quarrel. Cf above (and elsewhere) where those who are arguing that "morality" is nothing more than a perception relative to individual and community, are trying to imply that hose who object to homosexualisation of marriage are hateful bigots etc etc. That is, we have excellent reason to infer that we are a Creation, and that the implied creator is a good and necessary being, the ground of morality. Thus also, we have a purpose that is in part evident from our own nature and the nature of the world around us. In that context, that which frustrates our purpose and calling as creatures, is objectively wrong. And principles and rules -- notice my emphasis -- that recognise this will be right; where rules are more specific, less flexible and situationally applied/relevant. (BTW, I just had a conversation with an accountant on the difference between UK principle based accounting and US rule based accounting. In the UK even if one has punctiliously adhered to the rules, but manages to twist them into a misleading half-truth that fails to give a true and fair view, the auditors have a duty of disclosure that the principle has been frustrated. I am told Enron is a case in point of cleverly twisting rules into pretzels, frustrating the proper end by manipulating the means.) That such principles and consequent rules are tied to generally accessible warrant for a theistic view is simply a matter or reflecting evident reality. (Observe above how MF, a trained philosopher, was forced to admit that his evolutionary materialism has no sound foundation for morality, being reduced to that subjectivism and relativism that boils down to might makes right. That is, it is all about a power struggle to control levers of power. I hope he can now rise to the level of Plato, who knew c. 360 BC, that that MUST be both wrong and dangerous.) So, "religious rules" are not right or wrong on being tied to any particular religion -- the not so subtle agenda of slander [spell it out: theocratic tyranny] in using such terms -- but based on the evidence that we live in a Creation and are fallen creatures with a calling and a purpose that are partly evident from our natures and which we must make a serious, lifelong moral effort to recover. One of those principles is neighbour love, which is a root principle of virtue. I find it interesting that when Locke set out to ground the principles of liberty and limited government with divided powers, in his 2nd essay on civl govt, section 2.5, he cited noted theologian Richard Hooker from his Ecclesiastical Polity (an anglican work that elicited high praise from the pope of the day in the midst of the sad wars over religion!) thusly:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
We may pretend to ignorance on this, or may studiously ignore it; but the point is plainly sound. And it comes right out of the Golden Rule of Moshe and Yeshua; and, the often slandered and derided Paul. I cite from him in several pivotal remarks in the Epistle to the Romans; as this is in the specific context of moral duty, the roots of conscience and citizenship in community:
Rom 2:6 [God] will reward each one according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality [notice the principle and purpose, which specific rules will flesh out based on situations and circumstances], 8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness [notice the negative principle on rejection of truth one knows or should know, and its connexion to immorality] . . . . Rom 2:14 . . . whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them [notice the principle of the conscience], 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [notice the primacy of love and the point that principle sets the context for rules] 9 For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [or, HARM] to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [NET]
I happen to be specifically a Christian, and yesterday morning, at 221, I invited those who want to know why, to see why (at 101 level) I think this view is well-warranted. In that context, "rules" that credibly trace to our Creator may seem foolish or offensive to some, but frankly I trust the Creator's perceived folly before I trust the contrary claimed wisdom of men. Especially when the clues in my heart and the world around as well as history point strongly to the credibility of the source. (And yes, the echo of certain irony-tinged Biblical texts [esp. Prov 1, Rom 1 and 1 Cor 1:17 ff] is quite deliberate.) GEM of TKI PS: MEV6 should reflect on the fact that in a Judaeo-Christian context, on the principle of marriage as correct context, the act of penile, vaginal penetration -- which is biologically apt -- is seen as right in a marital context, but wrong elsewhere; by being taken from its proper context. And, even most of today's secularists will acknowledge -- fatally for subjectivism and relativism -- that the very same physical act, in the context of rape by fraud, force or exploitation of those unable to consent, would be wrong: context and proper purpose are important. Similarly, one can abuse the marital context in a pornographic setting, to promote unchastity and the benumbing of conscience in hopes of greedy gain and/or prurient display, as the [pseudo-] "amateur" genre commonly demonstrates. Acts and contextual rules are secondary to principles. From properly understood principles and purposes, we may discern proper rules for novel settings, that could not have been anticipated in texts, e.g. it is plainly wrong for a married couple to film the act of intercourse for pornographic purposes. But, it might be arguably appropriate for the same couple to have instead done so for a properly research or educational context. So, one and the same physical/biological act can have very different moral implications depending on context.kairosfocus
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
---Mike: "BTW – can I assume from your post that your response to my question in #244 is “only those acts that lead to procreation”? No one else has tackled the question." Yes, provided we amend that to read "only those acts that are 'open to' procreation." If a married couple cannot have children, their acts would not "lead to" procreation but could, nevertheless, be open to it and therefore moral. Also, one can make a case for other kinds of sexual acts if they are not brought to completion and used as a preliminary to sexual intercourse. ---"Sorry – I’m going to need a citation on the “effectiveness” part. My understanding is that the success of natural family planning is far lower than artificial methods." If you Google "Sympto-Thermal Method" of Natural Family Planning, you should find a number of studies that indicate an effectiveness rate of about 99%. I believe that surpasses the performance of the birth control pill by about .5%, and it certainly is a lot safer, carrying none of those dangerous and sometimes life-threatening side effects.StephenB
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
markf (#216) Thank you for your post. As I see it, the disagreement over the morality of homosexual acts boils down to these two questions: (a) Should every intimate act be an act of total self-giving? (b) Is the marital love that occurs between a man and a woman good for everyone? Once we grant that the answer to these two questions is "Yes," then the argument against the morality of homosexual acts follows logically. I'll address point (b) below, in the course of my argument against the morality of homosexual acts, which I hope to keep as plain and simple as possible, for those who dislike Finnis's "flowery language." As regards (a): in an intimate act, you give the other person your whole body. That's all of you: it's your whole self. You can't give any more than all of you. To argue against this, you have to adopt some kind of bizarre self-body dualism, according to which the body is not the self, but just a tool of the self. I don't think you, as a physicalist, would want to do that. Hence if a person has anonymous sex with someone without intending to give themselves in this fashion, then their conduct is basically schizoid and deluded: they are attempting to divorce their bodies from themselves, which they simply cannot do. It follows, then, that an intimate act is an act which, when performed by a person who is not deluded about themselves, can only be intended as an act of total self-giving. In the syllogism below, I'll assume that the two participants in a homosexual act intend it to be an act of total self-giving. It will be my aim to show that their intention necessarily fails. OK. So here's the argument: (1) A homosexual act is an intimate act. Thus if the participants in the act are not deluded about their nature as embodied beings, they intend this act to be an act of total self-giving. (2) However, a homosexual act is by its very nature incapable of being an act of total self-giving. It can only be something less than that. (3) An act which is by its very nature incapable of realizing the intentions of the actor is a wrong act. (4) Hence homosexual acts are wrong (i.e. immoral). Proof of (2): (5) If there is another act which, for each and every human being, is capable of signifying a deeper level of self-giving than a homosexual act, then necessarily, for each and every human being, a homosexual act not an act of total self-giving. (6) There is another act which, for each and every human being, is capable of signifying a deeper level of self-giving than a homosexual act, namely, an act of love between a man and a woman. (7) Necessarily, for each and every human being, a homosexual act not an act of total self-giving. (What's necessarily true for each and every human being is true by nature, so it follows that a homosexual act is by its very nature incapable of being an act of total self-giving.) Proof of (6): (8) There is something in an act of love between a man and a woman that is capable of signifying lifelong, monogamous love: namely, the fact that it is capable of procreating a child, who thrives best in a family where the love between the parents is lifelong and monogamous. (9) There is nothing in a homosexual act as such that is capable of signifying lifelong, monogamous love. (10) Lifelong, monogamous love is necessarily deeper than love which is not lifelong and monogamous. (11) Thus an act of love between a man and a woman is capable of signifying a deeper level of self-giving than a homosexual act. (12) No human being is by nature incapable of (i) participating in an act of love between a man and a woman, and (ii) giving him/herself in a way that signifies lifelong, monogamous love. (Impediments aising from disease or infertility are physical but not natural impediments, as removal of these impediments - e.g. by a super-skilled surgeon - would not alter who I am as an individual. A confirmed bachelor's disinclination to participate in the good of marital love - e.g. because he prefers solitude - does not mean that he is by nature incapable of doing so. Children are of course temporarily incapable of participating in the good of marital love now, by virtue of their immaturity, but they will be capable as adults. As adults, they will still be the same individuals that they are now.) (13) Thus for each and every human being, there is an act which is capable of signifying a deeper level of self-giving than a homosexual act, namely, an act of love between a man and a woman. The most controversial premise is probably the twelfth. What it's basically saying is: Marital love is good for everyone. There is no-one for whom it would not be a good. Now, if there were a "type" of human being that was by nature incapable of the kind of love that exists between a man and a woman, then one might be tempted to argue that people belonging to this type should be free to love in the best way they can, and that these people should not be bound by the rule that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. One might be tempted to propose an alternative kind of marriage for people of this type. What I'm saying is that as a matter of empirical fact, on our own planet at least, there is no such type. If we look at cultures outside our own society, there seems to be very little evidence of people who are gay for life. More tellingly, there is no fundamental difference between gays and heterosexuals, as can be shown by the fact that if a gay person has an identical twin, that twin is often straight. To suppose that being gay is good for one but bad for the other, you have to slide back into some kind of self-body dualism. It is true that many gays seem to have an orientation that precludes them from realizing the kind of love that exists between a man and a woman. Whatever this orientation may be, it is almost certainly not determined by their genes, as the “twin” argument shows. Hence there is no reason to consider it irreversible in principle. The fact that no present therapies can achieve this reversal for all gays does not imply that no future therapies will be able to do so. I agree with you that there if one were to approve of a man and a woman getting married who have deliberately rendered themselves incapable of having a child, one would have to approve of gay sex. I approve of neither practice. I conclude that the attempt to depict gays and lesbians as people of a different type, with a separate good of their own, fails. To sum up: in order to argue in favor of gay sex, you have to do one of two funny things: deny that people have a nature, or deny that the self is essentially embodied. The first option rules out the possibility of a naturalistic ethic. As naturalistic ethics is by far the best bet for constructing a secular humanist morality, then I don't think I'd be too keen to do that, if I were a secular humanist. (The alternative way of constructing morality based purely on preferences, is flawed because it fails to distinguish between preferences which are inherently destructive and those which are not. To do that, you need a notion of "harm" which is able to stand, irrespective of what individual people happen to like or dislike.) The second option involves a very peculiar way of looking at ourselves - one which is made even more peculiar by the fact that the people endorsing it are the ones who are the most vocal in criticizing Jews, Christians and Muslims for believing in a soul and an after-life. A common belief of Jews, Christians and Muslims, however, is that the souls of the dead shall one day be resurrected with their bodies, and that until they are, they are essentially incomplete. As regards gay marriage: I would not campaign against it so vociferously, were I not convinced that it cannot co-exist with marriage as we know it. I have already argued that children will be educated to accept gay marriage in schools, and that they will come to regard monogamy as just another lifestyle choice, and not as normative. Once you educate a population out of monogamy, it is very hard to educate them back into it. So there are my reasons in a nutshell. Let me reiterate that I bear gays no ill-will whatsoever.vjtorley
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Re: 276 I don't know what you're getting at, tribune, but I'm not suggesting that anyone who suffers torment has repressed homosexuality. If you're suggesting, with Beethoven as an example, that Tchaikovsky had emotional instability for other reasons, I'm not going to say you're wrong (it's not like I knew the guy), but when it came to his personal problems, his homosexuality is a frequently addressed issue by musicologists; to deny that is silly. In any case, I went with a familiar name, let's not get caught up in composers.Berceuse
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
---Quite: "StephenB, I’m very close to agreeing with you, but I think you go too far. By your criteria, any of the following (if they lead to male climax) would be evil even if practiced by a husband and wife: *oral sex *anal sex *masturbation *mutual masturbation *use of a condom *use of birth control pills I’m sure I’ve left something out. ----"I’m sorry, but that is just nuts. It certainly doesn’t derive from any natural law." What is the basis for your judgment? All Christian Churches without exception agreed that all these acts [if brought to completion] are immoral until 1930, when it became fashionable to flow downward with the stream and mimic the secular culture. That can mean only one of two things. Either they, like the Catholic Church, which maintained the teaching, were wrong for almost two thousand years, or else they caved in from social pressure.StephenB
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
markf, I just realized I did not address my response at 265 to you and you may have missed it. Sorry.tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
QuietID, the things you cited are considered sins by the Catholic Church. Addressing why they are sins requires reflection and prayer and conversations with God with the understanding that He still loves up if you should slip up and is more than willing not to hold it against you. The only act that you list that I think becomes the business of the public is the anal sex and that is because of the damage it causes, personal and public, whether it be hetero or homo.tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Berceuse -- Tchaikovsky, for example, was very tormented in his lifetime, arguably for this reason. And what caused Beethoven's torment?tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Mikev6 --To which I respond with the usual example of two heterosexual people in their 60s who get married, get benefits, yet can’t have children. And you would be raising a very good point. I would answer that it is more reasonable and better for everybody to end the allowance for them than to expand it to others. I'm just a big meanie. And if there should be unwillingness to end it for them, it would still be better for everybody not to expand it to to others. I'm not just a big meanie, I'm a big unfair meanie. The constitutional issues around gay marriage do not involve procreation. Nor does the prohibition about multiple wives. If a state should pass a law banning impotent men from marriage would that be unconstitutional?tribune7
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
StephenB, I'm very close to agreeing with you, but I think you go too far. By your criteria, any of the following (if they lead to male climax) would be evil even if practiced by a husband and wife: *oral sex *anal sex *masturbation *mutual masturbation *use of a condom *use of birth control pills I'm sure I've left something out. I'm sorry, but that is just nuts. It certainly doesn't derive from any natural law.QuiteID
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
StephenB:
To be sure, family planning need not violate the natural moral law, but the natural way, which is even more effective than they artificial way, is the only moral option.
Sorry - I'm going to need a citation on the "effectiveness" part. My understanding is that the success of natural family planning is far lower than artificial methods. BTW - can I assume from your post that your response to my question in #244 is "only those acts that lead to procreation"? No one else has tackled the question.mikev6
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
It is only in a teleological context that we can differentiate between good and evil sex acts. The relevant question is this: What does the natural moral law say about the purpose of sex and its legitimate expression. If the Creator designed sex for a purpose, then any sexual act that frustrates that purpose is evil. If, on the other hand, sex has no purpose, then no sexual act at all is evil. One cannot frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist. So, why did the Creator design humans with the capacity for sexual expression? In the most fundamental sense, there are two reasons: [A] to strengthen the loving bond between husband and wife and [B] to perpetuate the species. Equally important, each function is inextricably tied to the other. Because marital love can be defined as mutual and sacrificial self giving, the unitive component cannot be morally or logically separated from the procreative component. As a moral alternative to marital chastity, the husband cannot say to the wife, “I will give of myself insofar as our sexual activity intensifies our love, but I will hold back that part of myself that transmits life by practicing artificial birth control, medical sterilization, or some kind of non-procreative sexual activity. To love is not to give one half of oneself. To be sure, family planning need not violate the natural moral law, but the natural way, which is even more effective than they artificial way, is the only moral option. To run away from this aspect of the natural law is to set up the social and cultural conditions for the gay rights movement and, ultimately, gay marriage. Husbands and wives who use each other as mere sex objects are violating the natural moral law just as surely, though not so outrageously, and not nearly as recklessly, as sexually active homosexuals. If, on the other hand, the purpose of sex is solely for pleasure--If any orifice at any time will do--then homosexual behavior is just one more application of the dehumanizing, objectifying, anti-life principle of mutual masturbation.StephenB
December 9, 2010
December
12
Dec
9
09
2010
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 21

Leave a Reply