Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience, has been discussed previously on Uncommon Descent (see here and here ). Well, it’s in the news again.

I expect many readers will have heard by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. The Declaration – a Christian statement drafted in 2009 that supports religious liberty, traditional marriage and right to life issues – now has 479,532 supporters. The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning that it contained no objectionable material.

Last month, around Thanksgiving, the Manhattan Declaration application for iPhones and iPads was suddenly dropped, after the activist group Change.org gathered more than 7,700 signatures for a petition, after claiming that the application promoted “anti-gay” bigotry and “homophobia,” and that it attacked both “equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” Under a headline entitled, “Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application,” the petition drive concluded with the words: “Let’s send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.

The petition seems to have had the desired effect. Catholic News Agency contacted Apple on December 2 for the reason behind its decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration application. Spokesperson Trudy Muller said via phone that the company “removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” Strange. Why the 4+ rating, then?

I believe in calling spade a spade, so I’ll just come right out and say it: Change.org lied to its readers and to Apple about the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.

In their online petition to Steve Jobs, Change.org made the following deceitful claim:

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate…

Apple’s reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

Oh, really? Let’s see what the Manhattan Declaration actually says about the unborn and about gay marriage.

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

“The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.” “Ours is … a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.” Is this hateful language? You tell me.

I notice that Change.org speaks of “choice” in its online petition drive, oblivious to the fact that the innocent human being whose life is terminated during an abortion is denied a choice.

In defense of traditional marriage

“What about gays and lesbians?” you ask. Again, not a trace of hate. In the section on “Marriage,” the Manhattan Declaration affirms “the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life.” Obviously that includes gays and lesbians. The Declaratio­n goes on:

We acknowledg­e that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorou­s conduct and relationsh­ips, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct… We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives…

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”

As I write this, more than 35,523 people have signed an online petition to have the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app reinstated. I would strongly urge readers to lend their support to the petition by signing it here or here.

Let’s send a strong message to Apple that giving a group of concerned citizens a platform to express their opinions, and then withdrawing that platform without warning, is bad business.

Comments
SAR: You have forfeited the right of dialogue, though insistent slander. You have now repeated the slanderous claim of prejudice, apparently not realising that principled and warranted objection to the radical agenda -- by a powerful, well funded, deeply institutionalised influential minority bent on the tactic of "mainstreaming" -- is not to be equated to the irrational hatred or dehumanisation of those who have or may struggle with same sex attractions and behaviours. Homosexuals are human beings, and so deserve to be respected as such. Like the rest of us, they are finite, fallible, morally fallen and morally struggling. The Scriptures I believe speak redemptively to that:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (Amplified Bible) 9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, 10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. 11And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.
These are hope and prayer of every true Christian for those who fall into the listed typical classes of enmeshed sinners. including those enmeshed in sexual attractions and behaviour twisted out of the order of nature or taken out of the context of covenant of man and woman under God as the core of family as God created it. Now -- by the fact of repeated, insistent -- and now furthered -- personally abusive slander, you have forfeited the right to ask me questions. You have an apology and some retractions to get out of the way first. That is how you can return to the circle of reasonable, civil dialogue; from which you removed yourself by your repeated and insistent "dancing wrong but strong.". Worse, the just above are questions that in fact were anticipated in the clear statement that -- specifically rejecting lists of specially protected groups for good reason -- all human life should be protected from conception to natural death. No exceptions. No specially protected groups (and no silently de-listed and suppressed groups implicitly licensed as outlaws to be killed as convenient or desired). In short, the very question you ask is loaded with slanderous implications and assumptions, being an example of the fallacy of the complex, loaded question. For shame! In short, you need to set the basic problem right first, your being caught up in the Kirk- Madsen - Yogyakarta slander strategy to "mainstream" homosexualisation of our civilisation: _________________ >> 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) >> __________________ When you can show us that you have corrected that pattern of slander, and when you are willing to make amends for repeated and outrageous slander, then you will have returned to the circle of civil dialogue. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
MF: Pardon -- even though you are unlikely to read this, on your announced policy, I write for the record and the benefit of onlookers. First, until you can ground 'rights' on something stronger than subjective impulses, political negotiations [cf 377 above] -- and, more broadly, "might and manipulation make 'right' and 'rights' . . . " -- you have no basis to speak to the intersection of moral/natural law (that law written into our nature that relates to how we are morally governed as responsible creatures) and civil law and public policy. As to your strawman-tactic targets:
I: Homosexual behaviour (the relevant sex acts and associated relational practices) is demonstrably self-and socially destructive [thus immoral per Kant's CI], so -- given that it cannot be eradicated by public education or the like [cf smoking] -- at least should be contained and discouraged, even as we try to contain the damage done by alcohol. II: The more reasonable response is that relevant, particularly dangerous or communicable disease vector sexual practices should be illegal, restricted or strongly discouraged, with public education to explain why. (Anal intercourse, annilingus, and fellatio are particularly relevant here. Promiscuity, and anonymous multiple partner sexual behaviour in bath houses or the like -- how those 50 to 1,000+ sex act partners per lifetime are racked up -- should be also sharply restricted and enforced against where institutionalised in porn shops, bath houses and red light district streets or bordellos. As Uganda showed the way, the ABC principles can help with all of the above.) III: Isn't it interesting how the real problem was exactly reversed? What should be stopped decisively, is the -- historically utterly unprecedented, BTW [despite some pretty strained misreadings of history] homosexualisation of marriage, on several grounds already explained or linked above.
I find your second major resort to distractions and strawman rhetorc in 24 hrs, highly telling that you do not have a solid case on the merits. Starting with the objective grounding of moral claims. You can propose no is that can ground ought, without surrendering evolutionary materialism. That in turn is utterly revealing on the underlying challenges to our civilisation. GEM of TKI PS: I see that the comment and link are now up at your blog. That my one-liner comment should have been spam filtered is quite significant. (The likeliest suggestion is that UD is a blacklisted site at WP.)kairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
KF:
Next, I see that for about the fourth time in 24 hours, the de listing of homosexuality by some committee or other of the UN is being raised in a context meant to suggest that the “real” problem is hate to the point of intended mass murder of homosexuals.
I suppose it is unfair to tar you with that since you haven't advocated murder of homosexuals. So, to make sure we are all have the same understanding, do you agree that homosexuals should be on the list of "vulnerable populations in need of equal protection from extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary execution?" A simple yes or no will do.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
KF at 437:
SAR has become a capital illustration of a “convert,” who seems to imagine that — regardless of evidence (which she obviously refuses to read or respond to), the only possible motivation for objection to homosexuality is “prejudice.”
Let's open up your dictionary.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
By your own admission, the homosexual radicals are very small in number. Yet you see, in this small and powerless group, the entire destruction of society. You are made so anxious by their supposed agenda that you have retreated to a secret volcano lair (j/k).
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others
You are proposing to stop the large group of peaceful, moderate homosexuals from making their own decisions regarding their own relationships. And, yeah, maybe that is an emotional appeal. But, you are having a real impact on real people. At least have the courage to akcnowledge that you are having a demonstrable effect on people who do not subscribe to the agenda that has your knickers in a twist. At least, Upright Biped understands that he is thwarting the hopes of some of his friends.
Until SAR seriously addresses and cogently responds to the issues that are at stake, she has — by her unfortunate and willfully wrongheaded behaviour — removed herself from the circle of sober, serious, civil discussion.
As I said before, until the moderator decides to pass judgement on my individual contributions (See how that works?), you are free to ignore me. And, if you absolutely cannot countenance my presence, all you need to do is ask me nicely for last word and I will grant it to you.San Antonio Rose
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
QI: FYI: When you are falsely accused of prejudice and hate (your words being twisted along the way to do so), that is slander. In this case, the automatic projection of accusations of bigotry and/or hate and dehumanisation -- a very direct comparison to the accusation of racism -- unto those who have serious questions about or principled objections to the ongoing major global pressure to homosexualise marriage. (And if you do not notice that there is such a global push, you are either Rip van Winkle just waking up from a 20-year nap or you are at best in denial. And, RvW would not know about the internet or blogs on the WWW.) If such an attacker refuses to correct the statement but insists on it in the teeth of relevant correction, it is willfully false accusation, a variety of lying as well. That -- as can be objectively documented above -- happened not only to me, but in the broader sense to those who questioned the agenda to legally twist marriage away from reflecting the complementarity of the sexes and the requirements of child nurture; which would render irreversible the widespread damage done to marriage and family by the sexual chaos we see in our time. Much of that sexual chaos has to do with the rise of radical relativism that works to denigrate and dismiss traditional norms, a radical relativism that is in turn driven by the rise of a priori evolutionary materialism as a dominant worldview among the educated elites under false colours of science. Evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral as it has in it no is that can ground ought. It thus leads to radical relativism, and to the pattern whereby those who imagine that might and manipulation can decide 'right' and 'rights.' That is, it leads to factions and chaos thence tyranny, as Plato pointed out in The Laws Bk X. As a consequence, it is no surprise to see that those who hope to profit from that pattern, and those taken in by it are caricaturing, slandering and dismissing objectors. But in fact the very appeal to fairness and rights points to the objectivity of our being morally bound, i.e. we are morally governed. And if we are under moral law, we are under a Law Giver. The only viable candidate for that is the necessary being who is a wise and inherently good Creator. But those caught up in resentful ingratitude to such a Creator, and those who wish to do as they please -- if they can gain power -- will seek to reject such reasoning on whatever excuse, and will instead substitute caricatures and distortions of nature as objects for our ultimate loyalty. In this case, a twisted form of origins science that embeds a priori materialism, so distorting the obvious evidence that confirms the testimony of the moral law in our hearts: our cosmos and life in it bear strong empirical marks pointing to design. As to the Yogyakarta agenda, in point of fact, as I have repeatedly stated in the thread, I am currently facing an attempt to impose it right here in our revised constitution, through an ill-advised, poorly worded antidiscrimination clause that makes the mistake of listing protected groups and using such phrasing as would protect bestiality, sado-masochism etc etc. In addition, an earlier clause I had to help correct willfully was designed to set up so-called same sex marriage. Since you are plainly not RvW, you know about the global push, but are in obvious denial of its import and the effect of the mainstreaming tactics that the Yogyakarta advocates -- who did not suddenly vanish after issuing their declaration claiming to have force of international law! -- are pushing. Next, I see that for about the fourth time in 24 hours, the de listing of homosexuality by some committee or other of the UN is being raised in a context meant to suggest that the "real" problem is hate to the point of intended mass murder of homosexuals. In short, the talking point -- doubtless it is all over the homosexualisation agenda fora on the Internet and would have been in the news -- is being used to lend credibility to a lie and a slander. FYI, as tozzi's critique and the Manhattan Declaration demonstrate, there are principled and serious objections to the homosexualisation of marriage. Objectionsthat as this thread shows, are consistently not being answered, but instead are being met with distractions, distortions and demonisations. Here,the implied -- and utterly unworthy -- suggestion is that I and others like me would approve of mass murder, by formal or informal means of real or suspected homosexuals. QI, why didn't you scroll up above to where I have already responded to the claim, say at 287 above, and respond to the real issue? Namely, and as the Manhattan Declaration properly advocates, human life -- without modification or listing of groups worthy of such protection [which suggests that there are nameless groups such as the unborn or the comatose that are not . . . ] is to be protected from conception to natural death. The entire "special group rights" concept is wrong, and is very very dangerous, as it implies that there is life unworthy of living. That is why the MD is right to up front the life issue:
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. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition. 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.
BTW, that is another flash point for the constitution I am dealing with. (The FCO-imposed draft is riddled with literally dozens of serious errors, especially on issues of good governance, and is reflective of all sorts of politically correct agendas. It is one major redraft short of being right, but has been imposed by arm-twisting and intimidation. Now, we have to fight to expose it and insist on the major revision that is needed.) So, pardon me in my conclusion that the Yogyakarta agenda -- for which the after the ball, desensitisation, jamming conversion strategy was a precursor and foundation -- is very much being pushed on the ground, and coming from very powerful centres. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
Shogun #428 Notice how the “goal posts” have shifted on this issue, the gay-rights lobbyists propagated the myth that homosexuality is perfectly natural as their basis for legalizing it. But now scientists admit that there is no evidence for this. The next apology was to claim that homosexuality hurts no one. But further studies proved that there are indeed psychological, social, and medical problems associated with it. This one is worth responding to. I don't know about others but I have never defended (or attacked) any activity on the grounds of being natural. In fact I am not sure what it means for an activity to be natural. Is eating too much natural? Is road rage natural? I haven't had the time to read and assess all the stuff about the psychological, social, and medical problems associated with being gay. I imagine there are quite a lot. But so what? We need to decide what the issue is and the relevance of that evidence to that issue. Here are three possible propositions: 1) Homosexual activity is a sin. 2) Homosexual activity should be illegal 3) Homosexual marriage should not be allowed What is the relevance of possible psychological, social, and medical problems to each one? (1) Psychological, social, and medical problems are irrelevant. There are considerable such problems associated with overworking and alcoholism. These problems need to be addressed but they don't make overworking and alcoholism sins. (2) If there are any significant number of gay people who do not suffer or cause psychological, social, and medical problems then it would be unreasonable to make homosexuality illegal. Why should they suffer because of problems associated with other gay people? It would be like making the gypsy/traveller life illegal because of problems associated with many but not all gypsies. (3) As far as I can see none of these possible psychological, social, and medical problems arise specifically from gay marriage - rather they are alleged to arise from homosexual relationships in general. In fact it may well be that they arise just because gay people have not had the option to have publically recognised relationships such as marriage. I am not saying there is any evidence for this. All I am saying is that there is no evidence against it either. The evidence available is not relevant to gay marriage. Is this analysis sufficiently objective and unemotional for you?markf
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
I am clearly not as brilliant as Upright BiPed; I do not know the origin of every term I come across. Google was helpful to see if I could determine the full context of its use. I am going to assume that the "observable facts" to which UBP refers are that the penis fits into the vagina. I am aware of this. My point is that when the term is generally used, it is almost always in the context of arguing against same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the basis for that argument is that sex acts in same-sex marriages cannot produce children. I disagree that procreation is the primary function of marriage and should not be used as a criteria for permitting marriage. What exactly are you looking for in a response?Muramasa
December 12, 2010
December
12
Dec
12
12
2010
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
436 I find it humorous that a grown adult would need to Google "complimentarity of the sexes" in order to understand it. One might think that such things had become obvious somewhere along the way to adulthood. Of course, the Googling of the term was not done in an attempt to address the issue, but to have something to say in order to have anything to say at all. Indeed, the issue was brushed aside. This is what happens when inconveinent truths are to be avoided. The obviousness of this maneuver allows a prediction; when any of you get around to it, the bottom line will be that it simply doesn't matter. Dismissal of observable facts will be your final option.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Pardon me for that last note. Specifically, please pardon me for failing to point out the passive-aggressive nature of Zero's amusing attempt at 'Bulverism'Ilion
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
zeroseven @ 83Ilion, you sound angry. What are you afraid of I wonder? Why are other people’s personal sexual practices and decisions as to who to love so threatening to you and your kind?” And you sound like an idiot – that, by the by, is the charitable interpretation of your little foray into unlicensed psychotherapy.Ilion
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, to be honest, I haven't seen the demonizing to which you refer on this thread. I know you've been upset with some people, but I haven't seen anybody slander you. Sure, people's emotions are caught up, and sometimes folks get a little snippy, but these are -- as you rightly remind us -- important issues. As for the Yogyakarta principles, I am aware of them thanks to this thread, and I agree with you that they would take things too far if implemented. But I don't see that they have had any power -- certainly not in the UN. If they had, the UN would not have voted as they did last month to remove sexual orientation from a list of reasons not to execute a person. I don't see where anybody's right to free speech is being abrogated either. The fact that we're having this conversation suggests it's not.QuiteID
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
PPS: Let me list Tozzi's main points (note, there is need to examine the substantiating evidence): _________________ >>Problem #1: The [Yogyakarta] Principles undermine parental and familial authority. [p.3] Problem #2: The Principles undermine freedom of speech. [p. 4] Problem #3: The Principles undermine religious freedom. [p.5] Problem #4: The Principles undermine national sovereignty/national democratic institutions. [p.5] Problem #5: The Principles encourage (physically, psychologically and morally) unhealthy choices. [p.6] Problem #6: The Principles fail to provide objective standards for evaluating conduct. [p. 6] Because the Principles partially incorporate language or concepts that appear inoffensive or selfevident (e.g., everyone has a right to life), and characterize opposition as being violative of individuals’autonomy rights, they have a superficial appeal which can be difficult to counteract, particularly in circles that are sympathetic to the Principles’ underlying rights-emphasizing presuppositions. The Principles, however, assume a number of premises which are false, or stated more cautiously,should not be assumed to be true without proof. To begin with, the working group declares itself, ipse dixit, to be “The International Panel of Experts in International Human Rights Law and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” presuming that it possess authority to opine on the issues before it. From its roster,appears to be a self-selecting group, comprised primarily of activists. See Principles Annex at 34-35. Dissenting voices among, for example, psychologists are not evident, and they do exist.6 These voices, however, are not to be heard, and indeed any assertion that sexual orientation or gender identification is capable of being treated or cured is considered a form of “medical abuse” which must be proscribed. Principle 18 at 23 (calling upon governments to “Ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counselling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, cured or suppressed”) . . . . One also needs to recapture the language of the “common good.” What the common good is,simply, “that good which is common to all.” It is thus not to be equated with a majoritarian good (such as the “greatest good”) or a minority good (such as one identified with the predilections of autonomous individuals), but rather one that ensures flourishing of society as a whole and its constituent members . . . . In this regard, use of Kantian constructs – in particular the categorical imperative – that are not grounded in a particular religious tradition and thus more capable of approximating universal assent, can be useful . . . . Thus contrary to the presuppositions of the Principles, laws limiting the ability to marry to members of the opposite sex, or restricting benefits to married couples traditionally understood, are not arbitrary, but designed to promote the future flourishing of the human species, and not its diminishment and disappearance. This is to the benefit of all members of society, even those who struggle with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.[p.7, 8]>> ___________________ There are some very sobering issues at stake here. They should not be dismissed on poisonous talking points emanating from a radical, and radically relativist agenda. We need to ask what is happening to the common good. And, in this regard, perhaps it will be clear why I fear that the wounds in our civilisation -- absent a miracle -- are already mortal. Again, I ask us to soberly read Acts 27, as a parable and paradigm for what happens when an ill-informed democratic public is manipulated by special -- moneyed and dependent technical -- interests, how prudent but uncomfortable counsel is often dismissed, how dangerous risks can easily be run by the march of folly backed up by a "majority," and what then has to happen after the crash into reality.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
Following on from Murasma's excellent comment. As well as the of the "complementarity of the sexes" we get Shogun: "Homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from human nature. PERIOD." And on the back of this UP demands that someone justifies the virtues of homosexuality. As far as I can see this amounts to: Homosexual relations don't produce children This is not normal Therefore they need to justify their activity before it can be condoned. (If someone feels I am putting words into their mouths please correct. I just like to put things in plain English.) So, does everyone who engages in an abnormal activity have to justify it, otherwise it is evil by default?markf
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
What a hateful, devilishly deceptive and divisive piece of advice! Do you see the root of the trifecta fallacy of distracting red herrings, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems which are then ignited through incendiary slanderous rhetoric , the better to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere? Do you notice that somehow, by virtue of the distracting and polarising tactics above, we are not addressing the focal issue of imposed censorship on a false accusation of hate speech against those who have raised principled objections, not to homosexuality or homosexuals, but to the Yogyakarta-style aqenda to homosexualise marriage and family by imposition of dangerous law? So, we see just how effectively Kirk, Madsen and others at that infamous After the Ball conference did their poisonous work: ____________ >> Borne, 6 above (citing Kupelian’s summary): >>Through a detailed strategy including “desensitization(attitudinal manipulation through constant repetition), “jamming” (in which ruthless intimidation tactics are used to silence dissenting expression), and other powerful tactics, they have been able to shape public opinion. In After the Ball, the authors wrote: “We mean the conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.” >> Mynym, 127, out of the horse’s mouth so to speak: >> In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image. (After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s By Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :183) >> And, again in 207: >>The appearance of an argument can often aid an emotional appeal for other reasons. [...] Where the target of an emotional appeal is aware of the attempt at manipulation, he will tend to resist it; where he is distracted from the true nature of the appeal by a ‘cover argument,’ the emotional effect, paradoxically, will be all the greater. Thus, an argument can function as a distractor. Our remarks apply primarily to the (intellectually) lower 90% or so of the general population, whose beliefs more or less never alter their emotions. This is largely true of the upper 10%, as well, but, fortunately, not entirely. The highly intelligent sometimes display the capacity, although less often the inclination, to step outside themselves and analyze their feelings, and the causes of their feelings, dispassionately, and this sometimes modulates the feelings themselves. (After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen :138) >> Yet again, in 208: >> Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality. (After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen :152-153) >> ____________ In short, demonising slander of those who raise questions -- especially principled and informed ones -- concerning the homosexualisation agenda for our civilisation, multiplied by guilt manipulation and desensitisation to the self-and socially destructive behaviour of those caught up in homosexual activity. SAR has become a capital illustration of a "convert," who seems to imagine that -- regardless of evidence (which she obviously refuses to read or respond to), the only possible motivation for objection to homosexuality is "prejudice." Which she has been led to twist from its proper meaning, improperly judging before the facts are in, to any objection to the fashionable forms of outre behaviour of our time. (This is of course, the twisted -- amoral and radically relativist -- version of "tolerance" that demands approval of the most outrageous misbehaviour on penalty of being accused, usually falsely, of "hate." Its root is the dominance of evolutionary materialism, which as we have seen above, utterly undermines the foundation for morality, and ends up in the devilish delusion that might and manipulation make right.) In that process, SAR has now slipped across the border into trollishly slanderous behaviour. Having been repeatedly counselled and corrected, not to mention warned, she is insistent and plainly willfully abusive. Therefore, we should now refuse to "feed" trollish misconduct by paying it the attention it thrives on. Until SAR seriously addresses and cogently responds to the issues that are at stake, she has -- by her unfortunate and willfully wrongheaded behaviour -- removed herself from the circle of sober, serious, civil discussion. GEM of TKI PS: Quite ID,had you been paying attention, you would have found out from several remarks and links above that there IS an international homosexualisation of law and public policy agenda, one that builds on the successful agit-prop tactics worked out in the After the Ball conference and ruthlessly used over the past 20 years. Therefore, kindly read and respond on the merits -- i.e. reasonably -- to Tozzi's critique of the declarations emanating from the Yogyakarta conference held in 2006 in Indonesia under UN auspices. And, I think you will see not only above from the Manhattan declaration and the thread above but from the just linked critique [and from many other sources], that there is such a thing as a reasoned, principled concern about and objection to the radical, now global agenda to homosexualise our civilization's foundational institution, marriage and family. The abuse of anti-discrimination law and principles to do so, is of particular concern, for the demand now is not mere tolerance of what one objects to, but approval on pain of being slandered, labelled and punished under dangerously tyrannical law.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
There is a lot of hand-wringing about some posters failing to address the issue of "complementarity of the sexes". It has been referred to as the "elephant in the room" and "the primary issue". After an admittedly brief period of research, this phrase would appear to be primarily, if not uniquely used in Catholic literature. The top Google hit for "natural complementarity sexes" links to "For Your Marriage" which is described as "An Initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops". From that site: "Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman? The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for expressing conjugal love and transmitting human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage. Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage? A same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female. It cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union, that is, to cooperate with God to create new life. Because persons in a same-sex union cannot enter into a true conjugal union, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage." This just brings us back to the issue of procreation being the be-all, end-all core of marriage. I still do not find that argument compelling in the least. Examples above raised the question of infertile or elderly couples. Responses seemed to focus on the possibility that infertile couples could, in theory, get pregnant. Again, not a compelling argument.Muramasa
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Sorry, let me revise: reasonable people can and do disagree reasonably about the gay marriage thing.QuiteID
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Let me make a proposition: reasonable people can and do disagree about the gay marriage thing. Who's with me?QuiteID
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
SAR, You are quite a showman, of course, drawing on the convenient imagery of people on their knees begging for their rights, devils being tossed out, and such. This of course hasn’t the slightest effect on me. I am quite certain I have probably known, have been friends with, have associated with, have worked with, have shared time with and lived around more homosexuals than you have ever known. On my personal website is a video tribute to an openly homosexual friend I once worked with who recently passed away. I get along just fine, thank you. You failed once again to address the issue.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
SAR@431 - It doesn't appear that Upright Biped suggests that homosexuals justify their existence. He suggests that they justify the virtues of homosexuality. If the traditional definition of marriage should be changed, then they should be prepared with facts and evidence to show why this would be beneficial for all of society as a whole. As far as the only thing mattering is an invidual's relationship with God, I would also recommend reading Ecclesiastes 7:16, which states, "Do not become righteous overmuch, nor show yourself excessively wise. Why should you cause desolation to yourself?" A human who sets his or her own standards and judges others by them is 'righteous overmuch.' Yet, this person fails to realize that by doing so, he is elevating his standards above those of God and thereby proving himself unrighteous in God's sight.Barb
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Oh Mr. Biped, I guess I should be honored you have gone to great lengths to read what I have written. I am not used to having a whole passel of boys hovering around me trying to pull my pigtails. LOL.
Oddly enough, not only did she refuse to describe the virtues of homosexuality to the heterosexual society whom she demands must embrace it
Heterosexual society? I see. Homosexuals must justify their existence to you in order to be allowed to move about in polite company, is that it? What is the going price of admission these days? How very open-minded of you to allow them to beg for the right to make their own decisions regarding their relationships. Whether you like it or not, homosexuals exist in society and you cannot demand that they submit themselves for your approval. But that is the beauty of it. The only thing that matters is each of our individual relationships with God. I will stand before God with my head high for what I believe. And for those here who feel they are righteous enough to stand in judgement of others, I suggest you contemplate Matthew 7:21-23 before you go on about casting out those that you perceive as devils.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Why are people citing this book by Kirk and Madsen as though it is the center of some international homosexual conspiracy? It's sounding like Glenn Beck in here.QuiteID
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
I (as others) have followed SAR’s comments throughout this thread. The general strategy she uses is to ask questions (often trivial or irrelevant) designed to evoke an emotional response aligned with her position, which she avoids addressing. I counted some two dozen questions sprinkled among her comments: She asked if the objection to homosexuality was based upon anal sex, then wouldn’t the objection go away if gay men limited themselves to oral sex. She asked about elderly marriage, where she wants to know why a couple who marry beyond the age of childbearing can be seen as acceptable under the traditional views she opposes. She asks what will happen to a specific existing marriage if the whole world allowed homosexual marriage. She asks if it were possible to have gay marriage without prohibiting churches and their followers to moralize among themselves, would the objection to gay marriage go away. She asks (in order to assuage any concerns on the part of heterosexuals) if it does not make sense to somehow “work” with non-radical homosexuals in order to “marginalize” radical homosexuals. She again asks about the fairness of allowing straight people who are incapable of childbearing to marry if gays are disallowed. She asks why someone would suspect that gays are less likely to have life-long partnerships. She asks if it is not most-fair to gays to only consider divorce rates among gay couples in countries that have allowed gay marriage for some time. She ask if it would not make more sense for parents (who disapprove of gay marriage indoctrination at schools) to improve their parenting skills, or perhaps limit their children to religious schools, or keep them home altogether (as opposed to sending them to schools funded by the public). She asks if marriage only retains its specialness if it exists as an exclusively heterosexual contract. She asks how gay marriage is responsible for declining marriage rates. She asks if sexual immorality and gay marriage are presumed to be the cause in the decline in straight marriage. She asks if the decline in marriage might simply be caused by the “recognition” that some people are attracted to persons of the same sex. She asks if relaxing of gay stigma would not obviously lead to a reduction in marriage. She asks how government power is affected by a change in the traditional nuclear family. She asks if there is research indicating a higher failure rate among legal homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages. She asks if gay marriages are considered of “lower character” than non-gay marriages. She asks if traditional marriage is supported by prohibiting non-traditional marriage. She asks if it correct that prohibiting gay marriage is part of the effort to strengthen marriage and family. She asks why someone who doesn’t want the state telling them what they can and cannot do, would support a telling anyone what they can and cannot do. She asks if a “well ordered society” is where like-minded people get together and establish parameters for the society. She asks if her definition of prejudice is acceptable (that being anytime one group seeks to affect another group’s choices based upon the traits of a group, regardless of if those traits are "nice" or not, "radical" or not). And of course, she asks is she is not being “lady like” for the thoughtfulness of her treatment of the issue. - - - - - - - Oddly enough, not only did she refuse to describe the virtues of homosexuality to the heterosexual society whom she demands must embrace it, she flatly refuses to address the primary issue (that being the natural complimentarily of the sexes) despite it being on the table throughout the entire thread. One can only presume that these two items are unimportant to her thoughtful treatment of the issue.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Shogun: "We have a reproductive potential that could bring new human beings into the world being halted in favor of an unnatural desire." Are you really under the impression that the reproductive potential of humans on this earth is being halted?? Look around - it's racing to the 10 billion mark somewhere in the next 30 - 60 years! You really think we need the homosexuals of this world to help us make MORE people on this earth??? "the gay-rights lobbyists propagated the myth that homosexuality is perfectly natural as their basis for legalizing it. But now scientists admit that there is no evidence for this." Which scientists are those? There is plenty of science documenting that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species of animals, ranging from primates to gut worms, and it is well documented for 500 of them. Of course I am sure you will assert next that humans are not animals, and what's natural for non-human animals is not natural for humans.molch
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
San Antonio Rose
You aren’t willing to address my point over your zeal to affect an entire group of people based on the radical agenda of a few
But the opposition to homosexuality is not based on "radical few". The "yuck" factor opposing homosexuality is universal and historic. This means that it is a perfectly natural reaction to something that deviates from the human nature. However, I agree that the "yuck" reaction should not be used to justify violence or hatred towards homosexuals.
apparently being nice and wanting to live their lives in peace is just not enough
Your side keeps bringing up emotional sentiment towards homosexuality and rejects any sources cited by our side that show the serious problems associated with homosexuality. The only time that a subjective and emotional argument takes sway over an objective fact is when the fact is dismissed as inconvenient truth that conflicts with a subjective world view. Homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from human nature. PERIOD. We have a reproductive potential that could bring new human beings into the world being halted in favor of an unnatural desire. And the only reason it is being tolerated is because many people still foolishly think that it is perfectly natural. Notice how the "goal posts" have shifted on this issue, the gay-rights lobbyists propagated the myth that homosexuality is perfectly natural as their basis for legalizing it. But now scientists admit that there is no evidence for this. The next apology was to claim that homosexuality hurts no one. But further studies proved that there are indeed psychological, social, and medical problems associated with it. Now the lobbyists and humanists are left with a totally emotional and subjective justification for a an unnatural desire based on the claim that homosexuals are nice. But even if they are nice, that does not guarantee that when homosexuality becomes widespread in society there will not be a rise in sexual promiscuity, a rise in risk of AIDS and STDs, a rise in risk of psychologically affected children reared by homosexuals, and that people will start to look at the natural heterosexual marriage as a thing of the past. The problem with the atheist/humanist view is that it uses a justification for a certain desire as a basis for a moral choice. In other words, they think that allowing people to engage in their desires (ie homosexuality) is the right moral choice. But I don't see how can there be a sound moral standard based on "do as thou wilt", which is a concept derived from an abusive understanding of freedom.Shogun
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
SAR, you are a child. I mean that in a good way :-) Be careful out there.tribune7
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
SAR should read what she has become caught up in (while noting that I have given my reasons, evidence and onward references she refuses to engage . . . my conclusions are not a judgement before facts, neither are they irrational):
You aren't willing to address my point over your zeal to affect an entire group of people based on the radical agenda of a few. You admit that there a nice gay people, but apparently being nice and wanting to live their lives in peace is just not enough. The must conform to your rules and expectations or suffer being collateral damage in the culture war. As far as your disapproval of my tone, all I can say is your indignation is noted. You wear it well.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
#422 Vivid Just to put the record straight. I have never been to Cornell and I am not an academic. I guess you are thinking of Allen MacNeill. Why did you resort to trivial insults? I don't think I ever made any personal remarks about you did I?markf
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Onlookers: SAR should read what she has become caught up in (while noting that I have given my reasons, evidence and onward references she refuses to engage . . . my conclusions are not a judgement before facts, neither are they irrational): _______________ 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) >> ________________ G'night all GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
"devastating" Vividvividbleau
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
mf RE 373 Really? this is the best you can do? The issue is not whether questions regarding good and evil are trivial even though in your view they are not absolute. Of course they are important nor did I say otherwise. The issue is what grounds morality not that it is not trivial. That you think you have dismissed "might maked right" by your missive says something about your capacity to be imporessed by your own percieved self importance. In short it was a very poor performance from a Professor from Cornell. It was instructive however to observe that on your blog you do the very thing I stated in 359 "Having abandoned the neccessary foundational principle of an absolute “good” they are left to wander in the wilderness of their own subjective making arguing that good is whatever they convince others what that “good” happens to be at this moment in time. If they can get enough people to agree what was at one time wrong that it is now good evil becomes good and good becoes evil. Materialists are moral alchemists" Your post was nothing more or less than a marshalling of your arguments, nothing more really than your opinion,as to why your position and thoughts on these matters should hold sway over contrary opinions. Thanks for proving my point. I suggest you reread KF's post # 377. IMO a pretty devestating critique. Oh I forgot you don't like to engage KF. Vividvividbleau
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 21

Leave a Reply