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
I’m a bit surprised at the folks here– who normally call out for moral absolutes — reading the Scriptures in relative fashion just when it’s convenient. Whether it's convenient or not the spirit/meaning of the law is more important than the legalism of debating exactly which sex acts are allowable and so on. (By the way legalists, anal sex is always destructive as a result of feces in the bloodstream and all that.) With respect to the meaning of the law:
Most of the rules of the law of holiness relate to the basic categories of the natural world and of human experience. Such categories as the living and the dead; mortal and divine; human and animal; air, sea, and land; male and female; past, present, and future are common to most peoples. They provide a framework of basic “natural” categories that render the universe meaningful. What is peculiar to the Jewish people is that these natural categories are also moral categories and anything that is ambiguous or threatens to blur the boundaries of these categories is treated as abominable. [...] We can see also why sorcery, necromancy, and witchcraft are forbidden (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 12:26—27, 20:6—7; Deut. 18:9—15; 1 Sam. 15:23, 28:7— 20; 2 Chron. 33:6) and why “any man or woman among you who calls up ghosts and spirits shall be put to death” (Lev. 20:27). Such people are dangerous because they break down the division between the living and the dead or between the present and the future (Is. 8: 19—2 2, 47: 13—15). The book of Leviticus makes explicit a central moral distinction that runs throughout the Old Testament—the Jews must either live in a world of carefully separated discrete categories (i.e., remain a people with a distinct identity) or face a world of utter confusion (Douglas 1970, p. 67; Davies 1975, p. 97). The biblical account of the creation involves the resolution of the world into clear categories from primeval confusion (Gen. 1: 1—19) , and the flood represents the return of that confusion as the separation of the land from the sea is eliminated. The building of the tower of Babel, an impious attempt to join together the separate categories of heaven and earth, is punished by the infliction of confusion on its builders, the beginning of the mutual unintelligibility of men’s various languages (Gen. 11:1— 9), an unintelligibility removable only by the divine gift of tongues (Acts 2:2—12). It is now possible to provide a complete explanation for the harsh treatment of homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism in the scriptures. These are all forms of sexual behavior which break down the boundaries between some of the most fundamental categories of human experience—the categories of male and female and human and animal. [...] It is easy to see how transvestites break down the categories of male and female, but the situation is slightly more complicated in the case of homosexuality. The essential point to grasp is that “male” and “female” are complementary categories, each defined in relation to the other. The male is by definition complementary to the female and only remains male so long as his sexual behavior relates exclusively to females. Any sexual behavior directed by a biological male toward another male will (at any rate so far as the scriptures are concerned) automatically place him in the same cat egory as a female, for whom this is the normal sexual orientation. Because homosexual behavior involves a person placing himself or her self in the wrong sex category it erodes the boundary between these cat egories. This is why homosexual behavior is linked in Leviticus with bestiality, a sexual practice which breaks down the division between the equally fundamental categories of the human and the animal (see also Epstein 1948, p. 135)." (Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries By Christie Davies American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 87, No.5, Mar., 1982 :1032-1063)
Maybe it’s obvious to you what is relative and what is absolute, and maybe it’s just a happy coincidence that those differences align nicely with your political convictions. Natural law isn't just obvious to me, it's obvious to everyone. On the other side, we are not the people of God wandering the wilderness and so on and our relationship to it is not the same. To the extent that we know the law of the Jews as Christians we are merely former pagan perverts ourselves. As for me, I find these questions rather difficult. You find it difficult to understand that Christianity doesn't call for the execution of homosexuals? Then why do you suppose that so many Christians have been tolerant of it? They were all wrong but your struggles with it are correct and supposedly show what a good legalist you are? Let the dead bury their dead.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
STephenB:
Gay marriage reduces mainstream marriage to just one of many social contracts which, by definition are not deemed special in any way. It has already had an effect. Marriages are down in the West and, more and more, arguments are being made that the state can do just as good of a job rearing children as parents in a nuclear family.
So apparently marriage still has it's specialness when it is one of (many - 1) social contracts? And marriage rates have been declining since the 1960s. How exactly is gay marriage, which is a recent event, responsible for that?
The trajectory goes like this: Sexual immorality, in general, and homosexuality, in particular, reduces the number of marriages;
You mean the number of straight marriages, right? Is it gay marriage that is the problem or just the mere recognition that perhaps some people are attracted to members of their same gender? How exactly does that work? By not stigmatizing gays, they start to feel free to come out of the closet and not hide in loveless traditional marriages to a person they are not attracted to? I suppose that would reduce the number of marriages. But, I am not sure why you think marriages in which one of the parties is miserable and not attracted to their partner is a good thing. I would think society would be improved by relationships where the participants are committed to love and support each other regardless of whether or not they conform to the idea that one party must be male and the other must be female.
fewer marriages weaken the nuclear family, which is the main safeguard against a tyrannical state; the weakened family cannot resist the tyrannical power of the state and basic human rights are lost.
Actually the main safeguard against a tyrannical state is The Constitution in general, and the Second Amendment in particular. The idea that the massive power of the government is rendered ineffective because a family has a husband and a wife, as opposed to some other arrangement seems ridiculous on it's face. So, tell me how does that work? How is the power of the government defeated when Heather has a mommy and daddy, as opposed to two mommies or two daddies?San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Very instructive thread. What it shows is the bankruptcy of the materialists as it relates to morality. 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 As KF has already pointed out good is another word for "might" as in "might makes right (good)" Of course this offends their sensibilities but the fact is all Hitler did was exercise might and made the holocaust good. After a few years a stronger might intervenend (The Allies) and made what was once good evil. And that sums up the basic foundation of morality for the likes of MF, Lars, and all the other moral relativist's on this thread as Lars stated in response to this query by KF KF: could you kindly provide warrant — beyond, “might makes ‘right’…” — for why we should be bound by your views on “civil rights, justice, and economic equity.” LT: “No, I cannot”. Nuff said. Vividvividbleau
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
UB Thanks for watching my 6. LT needs to address the implications of his evident evolutionary materialist metaphysics, in light of the IS-OUGHT gap such views contain. That is plainly the underlying driver of the collapse of ethical thought in our civilisation, and the results are quite evident in the sexual chaos reflected in this thread as we can see above. To fix the problem, we need to go back to the other subtle implication: the fact of quarrelling -- especially over rights -- implies that we are morally bound, morally governed. Thence we see that there is moral law that governs us in light of our purpose, and this points to a Law Giver. On such a foundation, we could rebuild our civilisation, but my suspicion is the disease is now mortal. Better go study Chinese, folks. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
molch hermaphrodites are condemned to lifelong celibacy Why should that be the case? Just so long as they used the organs God gave them in the proper manner, of course.tribune7
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Contrary to what has been said about me, I don't think homosexuals are a different category of person. In fact, I agree with much of Dr. Torley's account of development, although describing early same-sex attraction as "homosexuality" seems too Freudian to me. I'm a bit surprised at the folks here-- who normally call out for moral absolutes -- reading the Scriptures in relative fashion just when it's convenient. Maybe it's obvious to you what is relative and what is absolute, and maybe it's just a happy coincidence that those differences align nicely with your political convictions. As for me, I find these questions rather difficult.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Further, you do not just oppose the death penalty: from what I understand, you oppose all legal punishment. Why? If homosexual behavior was punished for itself then, it should be punished for itself now. Not at all, the spirit of the law is the same (i.e. the Logos to things or natural law that even perverts know) but the letter of the law dealing with it is relativized by time, place and circumstance. In this case, perhaps the main reason that an ancient group of wandering nomads could not tolerate homosexuality in the least was because most would have been dead due to disease if they did tolerate it. It's a different circumstance than the "Live and let die." attitude that people can afford to take now.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
I think one of the things that is driving the dispute is that you see homosexuals as a separate category of persons... Propagandists recommend creating such imagery but the evidence is clear: "Homosexuality is something people do; it is not who they are." --Pepper Swartz, summarizing the evidence For some posting here it seems that the evidence doesn't matter. They know a nice gay, therefore whatever else they're advocating legally or morally follows. Notice how their infantile logic doesn't work to reach any other conclusion. For example, if someone said that the gays they knew were narcissistic and manipulative and concluded that this settled all legal or moral issues they would call their own logic bigotry.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Dr. Torley, These are complex issues, but I'll try to reply to several related concerns. First, your lack of nosiness is an insufficient defense of your position. You've said
I would deny marriage to a straight couple that has no interest in having children and has taken steps to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Those are strong words. As San Antonio Rose notes, you seem to back away from this position, but it either means something or it does not. Why not have the state issue a certificate barring marriage to any bachelor receiving a vasectomy unless and until the procedure is reversed? As for the death penalty, here I think you walk into a bit of a trap. You write:
The reason why the death penalty may have been necessary in ancient Israel may have been because in that culture, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was predominantly associated with pedophilia. The practice may have been so prevalent that it had simply to be eradicated, root and branch, in order for Israelite society to retain its ethical and religious ideals – otherwise Israel would have succumbed to child abuse, as other societies in the region did.
A number of people on this very thread have suggested that we are going in that direction now, so why not revert to that standard? Further, you do not just oppose the death penalty: from what I understand, you oppose all legal punishment. Why? If homosexual behavior was punished for itself then, it should be punished for itself now. If it it punishable only when associated with pedophilia, it is but a small step to saying that homosexuality is wrong only under the same conditions.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
question for all those on this thread who think that heterosexuality is the only "natural" and "moral" kind of sexuality: does that mean hermaphrodites are condemned to lifelong celibacy, since they are "naturally" neither male nor female (and you consider sex-adjustment, after all, also "unnatural" and "immoral")?molch
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Lar, When you come up against reason that you can't deal with, have the sack to admit it and move on. /realityUpright BiPed
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
"Quote mine"....??? Skippy, its right up thread for anyone to see. Are you suggesting I took you out of context? Let us see: Your next words following my quote of you were "I don’t think you should be bound to my views on these things." ...and that was the end of your thought. You next started another paragraph beginning with "Now a question for you."Upright BiPed
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
QuietID -- But as a citizen, I think the society has reached a point where laws need to treat homosexuals as equals. I think one of the things that is driving the dispute is that you see homosexuals as a separate category of persons, whereas I, and most of those disagree with you, I suspect, do not. I believe that homosexuals are treated as equals under the law. I see it primarily as a behavior issue while you see it as a forced-identity issue. Why do you see it this way?tribune7
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
BiPed: Ah, the quote-mine. How...surprising /sarcasmLarTanner
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
#345
KF: could you kindly provide warrant — beyond, “might makes ‘right’...” — for why we should be bound by your views on “civil rights, justice, and economic equity.” LT: "No, I cannot".
Upright BiPed
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Quick question as I don't have alot of time in study hall. VJT, you write:
I would deny marriage to a straight couple that has no interest in having children and has taken steps to ensure that doesn’t happen.
and then you write:
No public official has any business asking a man and woman wanting to get married what their views on this or that issue are, or whether they have sterilized themselves.
So, you feel strongly enough that marriage should only be about procreation that you think marriage should be denied to some heterosexual couples, but not strongly enough to act on your convictions. You justify your inaction by saying:
The legal presumption should therefore be that a man and woman presenting themselves before a marriage celebrant have no impediment to marriage. With a gay couple, on the other hand, the impediment to marriage is immediately obvious.
But, in your future sci-fi world where you think hysterectomies can be reversed and menopause stopped, you would still deny the same legal presumption to same sex couples even if science figured out a way for them to procreate. You justify that by saying:
Even if science could enable a lesbian couple to have a daughter, it would still remain the case that a lesbian sex act could never produce one. Thus a lesbian sex act could never be described as a procreative act. It lacks that dimension.
So, it isn't enough that same sex couples could procreate, they must procreate by performing The Right Procreative Act. Maybe I am just a dumb girl, but it seems to come down to the fact that you just don't like what gay couples do behind closed doors.San Antonio Rose
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Kairos (334)--
You acknowledge just above that you have no basis for the morality that we all must live as being bound by.
Did I say "no" basis? Really? As in "none"? I don't think I said or implied "no" basis. I might have said something like "no absolute basis," which is far different than none at all.
Therefore, the onus is on YOU to show us that our concerns on the intent to homosexualise marriage are not well-founded.
Your concerns are not well-founded because marriage is not the exclusive right or domain of heterosexuals and never has been. What's more, there is no logical or moral reason in a free society to make the legal definition of marriage arbitrarily exclusive. Other than this, I wish not to indulge the fear-mongering and bigotry shown in your raving demand for me to speculate on future society. If folks like you would grow up and get over yourselves, society might do very nicely, thanks. If you really cared about people and about "life" and "family," you would turn not to the juvenile MD but to movements focused on eradicating poverty (how about that?) and urging global environmental responsibility. WhyLarTanner
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
vj #307 Re your case of the couple where the woman finds out she has Huntington’s disease, I’m afraid I would not regard either a vasectomy or a hysterectomy as a moral option. Both acts are a kind of self-mutilation, which involve destroying an aspect of your whole being: your fertility. It’s a you-versus-your body mindset again. On the other hand, if they got married and had sex, knowing that their offspring might inherit the disease, I would not regard that as a wicked act. There can be no such thing as wrongful procreation. Inadvisable, yes; wrong, no. This demonstrates to me the subjectivity of ethics. I find the actions of the couple so obviously praiseworthy and morally good that any argument that concludes they acted wrongly must be mistaken - a sort of ethical reduction ad absurdum. To be honest I am little shocked that you, a good man, should hold such an opinion. However, at this point we have to agree to differ and I just hope your position changes.markf
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
QuiteID (#341) and San Antonio Rose: I'm not a nosy person by nature, and I do not believe the State should be, either. No public official has any business asking a man and woman wanting to get married what their views on this or that issue are, or whether they have sterilized themselves. The legal presumption should therefore be that a man and woman presenting themselves before a marriage celebrant have no impediment to marriage. With a gay couple, on the other hand, the impediment to marriage is immediately obvious.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
QuiteID (#337) I'd just like to comment on a remark you made in your previous post, if I may. You wrote:
Internationally, of course, homosexuals have a great deal to fear, including execution. That of course is the Biblical standard (Lev 18:22), but modern pluralistic societies cannot hope to implement that standard. The question is how far will they depart from it?
I don't know whether it was your intent, but your wording suggests that in a completely Judeo-Christian society, the death penalty for homosexuals would be appropriate, and that the only reason you object to it being implemented at present is that the society we live in is a pluralistic one. I hope I haven't mis-read you; my profound apologies if I have. If that is what you meant, then I would have to disagree. I would maintain that the death penalty for homosexual acts (mandated in Leviticus 20:13, by the way), was intended for a one-off situation, never to be repeated. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) strongly suggests that Jesus Christ intended to do away with the death penalty for sexual sins. The reason why the death penalty may have been necessary in ancient Israel may have been because in that culture, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was predominantly associated with pedophilia. The practice may have been so prevalent that it had simply to be eradicated, root and branch, in order for Israelite society to retain its ethical and religious ideals - otherwise Israel would have succumbed to child abuse, as other societies in the region did. Secular readers should recall that we are talking about a subsistence society, more than 3,000 years ago, which certainly could not afford the luxury of high-security jails. In short, God's command to execute homosexuals in ancient Israel does not imply the universal generalization that all practicing homosexuals deserve the death sentence. Homosexuals are sinners, but so are we all. They are also children of God. The death penalty is justifiable only when the very survival of a society is at stake.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Dr. Torley, please be consistent. If you're going to argue for the rights of couples to adopt no matter their views on homosexuality (I presume you'd not prohibit adoption by a pro-gay, heterosexual couple) you should not restrict the rights of people to marry -- and, presumably, adopt -- based on their views about birth control.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
---SanAntonioRose: "When I asked my parents that question they answered that their marriage wouldn’t be harmed because the only thing that affects the success or failure of their marriage are their actions and behaviors towards each other. To the extent they honor each other, they sanctify the relationship. Two gay guys getting married has no impact on them at all." The issue is less about the impact on this or that marriage and more about the impact on the common good, society at large, and the future of marriage and the nuclear family as an preferred institution. Gay marriage reduces mainstream marriage to just one of many social contracts which, by definition are not deemed special in any way. It has already had an effect. Marriages are down in the West and, more and more, arguments are being made that the state can do just as good of a job rearing children as parents in a nuclear family. The trajectory goes like this: Sexual immorality, in general, and homosexuality, in particular, reduces the number of marriages; fewer marriages weaken the nuclear family, which is the main safeguard against a tyrannical state; the weakened family cannot resist the tyrannical power of the state and basic human rights are lost.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
San Antonio Rose (#329, 330) I'd just like to clear up one point, first of all. I would deny marriage to a straight couple that has no interest in having children and has taken steps to ensure that doesn’t happen. However, I would not deny marriage to an elderly or infertile couple that has no interest in having children, but has taken no steps to ensure that doesn't happen. The former couple have closed their hearts to procreation. The latter couple is simply not interested in procreation. So, contrary to your claim, it's not simply about about the Approved Types of Sex. 1. You ask:
What makes you think gays are less likely to have life-long monogamous relationships? Frankly, heterosexuals don’t exactly have a great track record in that regard. Given that same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon, shouldn’t we be looking at the divorce rates for gays in countries where they can get married?
I agree that the track record of heterosexuals is not fantastic in the present day and age. However, gays have a much worse track record. You may have missed what I wrote earlier on in this thread, in comment #20 (see paragraph 9):
[T]he vast majority of gay couples are not monogamous. If you want to see the evidence for that assertion of mine, please read the article, Open Monogamy by writer and attorney Mary Rice Hasson.
An excerpt from Hasson's article:
While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff's report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships. (Note that we are talking about male homosexual relationships here. Research on lesbian couples is sparse but one study finds that 20 per cent of lesbians pursue open relationships.)
Hasson goes on to argue that even gays who call themselves monogamous don't really practice monogamy. Commenting on that finding, I wrote:
Some gays may claim to practice "emotional monogamy" (i.e. it’s OK to have an occasional affair, so long as you don't get emotionally involved) but that is not the same thing as real monogamy. (Think about it: what wife would tolerate that rationale from a philandering husband? "It’s OK, honey, I cheat but I never get emotionally involved.")
Later in the same comment, I also wrote:
Readers might also like to have a look at this article in Psychology Today (September 16, 2008), whose author is quite sympathetic towards "open marriages" and even thinks we can learn something from them:
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships. He makes it clear that whatever you decide as a couple you should be up front, direct and honest about what the contract of your relationship is on both sides. (Emphasis mine – VJT.)
You may have also missed what I wrote in my critical review (comment #212) of the recent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) by Drs. Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos, which was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Since the 1980s, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) has been following and reporting on a cohort of planned lesbian families with children conceived through donor insemination. Having a child would be a pretty powerful motive for staying together, you might think. Evidently not:
Remarkably, the authors report that the relationship-dissolution rate for the lesbian couples was 48% at the 10-year mark and 56% at the 17-year mark. (The average duration of the relationship prior to dissolution was 12 years.) When compared to the relationship-dissolution rates of the biological heterosexual sisters of the lesbians, the rate of relationship breakup is nearly double for the lesbians.
2. You also wrote:
I don't understand why people are so scared that public schools will teach students an unhealthy view of marriage. Wouldn’t it make more sense to improve their parenting skills or send their kids to religious schools (or home school) that will teach the right things?
The reason is that in 20 years' time, the government won't let religious schools teach that homosexual acts are immoral, or that marriage is essentially monogamous. That will be considered hate speech, which is prejudicial to the interests of gays, the majority of whose marriages are not monogamous. In comment #20 above, I cited the case in the UK of a Christian couple being denied the right to adopt children because of their beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality. The Christian Legal Centre, commenting on the case, said:
'The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance. 'It may not be long before local authorities decide that Christians cannot look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society, simply because they disapprove of homosexuality.'
I then argued that it wouldn't be long before natural parents are quizzed about the same thing. (After all, the argument will go, if adoptive children have the right to be brought up in a bigotry-free household, why not natural children too?) I also predicted that birth mothers would one day be refused the right to take their baby home from hospital, unless they gave the “correct” answers to the hospital social worker who quizzes them about what they would do if their child turned out to be gay. And in an earlier post, entitled Survival of the Godliest: Does strong religious belief provide an evolutionary advantage? I outlined some simple measures by which secularists might seek to restrict the fertility of religious people and propagate their secularist "memes," among them the following:
Deny government funding to religious schools that teach any kind of "bigotry." Leave the term "bigotry" as vague as possible in legal judgments, in the beginning. As time progresses, issue a series of legal decisions, enlarging the list of ideas that can be classified as bigotry, so that in effect, religious schools receiving government funding end up teaching a form of "secular lite," which is always about 15 years behind current social trends, and therefore relatively innocuous from a secular perspective, while at the same time retaining limited appeal for parents who want their children brought up with "old-fashioned" values.
(As I pointed out in that post, the research indicates that only people with very strong religious beliefs - so-called "fundamentalists" such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews - tend to reproduce at above replacement levels, so inculcating secularist "memes" would have the effect of reducing fertility.) At a later date, even religious schools which don't receive government funding could be threatened with closure for teaching "bigotry." In short: the secularist bureaucrats who seek to impose their values on the rest of the population have a long-term plan, and they are quite prepared to use the power of the State quite ruthlessly to impose it. Sending your children to a religious school might reduce the risk of them being corrupted by secular ideals, but not for long.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
ME6: I note to you again, I am meeting those principles so-called in action on the ground here in dealing with a constitution. Indeed, much of the above thread is a manifestation of the agenda shown in those principles, so-called. Further, above I showed that the MD first addresses the principle that life, from conception to natural death and without qualification, should be respected and cherished. Any qualification by listing particular classes of persons to be specially protected in fact undercuts the basic principle. That is the "group rights" premise is antithetical to the very foundation of rights. As was already addressed above. And, you too, on track record, need to address the same challenge that LT has to, on the inherent amorality and radical, subjectivist relativism of evolutionary materialist worldviews, leading to the nihilistic premise that might makes right. Otherwise, we would be foolish indeed to turn our backs. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
StephenB, I agree with you here:
Christian theology/philosophy provides only basic moral principles upon which the civil law is established, allowing the culture to breathe and develop naturally. It does not, like Islam, smother the culture with a ready made legal and social agenda customized to conform in every way to its theological dogmas.
As a Christian, I'm against homosexual behavior. But as a citizen, I think the society has reached a point where laws need to treat homosexuals as equals. You may be right about what we in the West have to fear, although I have not seen the effects of that. The fears expressed here have been of the what-if, slippery-slope variety. Internationally, of course, homosexuals have a great deal to fear, including execution. That of course is the Biblical standard (Lev 18:22), but modern pluralistic societies cannot hope to implement that standard. The question is how far will they depart from it? The UN recently voted "to remove LGBT people from a list of protected groups that have historically been targeted for genocide." Such a vote suggests that the Yogyakarta principles, which kairosfocus has raised, are hardly guiding for international law.QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
---Mike: "However, wouldn’t the last sentence also allow uncompleted anal sex as a preliminary to intercourse? (I’m just going on logic here – the downside of that particular process is obvious to me as well as anyone else.)" The justification for engaging in alternative sex acts would seem to be based on the idea that some souls, either for medical or psychological reasons, cannot "get ready" for birth-producing sex any other way, if you get my drift. On the other hand, one must already be ready for anal sex to engage in it, so I don't understand how it could be morally justified as a preliminary technique.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
mikev6 -- I see marriage as a useful and fulfilling entity even if children are not part of the equation, and inability to have children . . . If children are not part of the equation, why not just live together without a contract? Why is access to a divorce court so important?tribune7
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
LT: Pardon. You acknowledge just above that you have no basis for the morality that we all must live as being bound by. That speaks volumes on the inadequacies of the secularist, evolutionary materialistic view. Above I pointed out the longstanding -- 2,350 years is surely longstanding -- concern that such views logically lead to radical relativism and the de facto principle that might makes right. Such people in a community will operate by the principle: what can I get away with, i.e. utter incivility. Such, therefore can only to be negotiated with at arms'-length, and on terms of realising what will happen if one's back is turned. (Very familiar terms these, we used to have to deal with communists, who lived by the ethics of ends justifying means, and might determining right. We learned the hard way -- I could give you some hair-raising war stories -- never to turn our backs to them.) Therefore, the onus is on YOU to show us that our concerns on the intent to homosexualise marriage are not well-founded. For, to people like Plato described, "rights" is a synonym for a claim to power to act as one pleases, regardless of consequences to others who are not sufficiently strong to retaliate. Claiming a "right" coming out of such lips, is pointless. So, now, show us, in specific response tot he concerns above, how radically reshaping marriage will do more good than harm in the community. (And address the framework for rights and purposes, thus justice that has already been presented, please. for, that one anchors rights in our objective experience of being morally bound and its implication that there is a Law-giver, who has made us male and female and has made children such that the need 10- 20 years of stability to be properly matured. Thus, marriage as it is historically understood. And, since marriage, hsotorically and on the above facts of procreation and nurture is a matter of mutual consent and long term open ended commitment between people of complementary sex, it is a freedom and an agreement indeed a covenant, not a right.) Failing that demonstration of safety in making the demanded changes, the default must stand, for simple prudence and safety. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
---Quite ID: "I think the Natural Law argument is weak, and the Biblical arguments prohibiting such acts within marriage are nonexistent." If it is weak, you should be able to explain why and offer an alternative standard, complete with its rationale. So far, you have not done that. The Scriptures are certainly not silent, making even more demands than the natural moral law by holding us accountable not just for our behavior but even for our thoughts and intentions. It is completely anti-Scriptural for one person to use another person as an object for his/her sexual gratification as the admonition against lust makes clear. ---"The Catholic Church (which was the sole Western authority on such issues until the Reformation) built its views over time less and less on the Bible and more and more on a highly elaborated and specific theology that I don’t share." The Catholic Church's position is the Biblical position, and it has not changed in any way. ---"The argument from tradition is not compelling." That statement is easy to make but not so easy to defend. ---"Why do you (and vjtorley, and kairosfocus, etc.) all reject the argument from tradition [illegality of homosexuality] in that case?" Which argument are you referring to? --"If you accepted the argument from tradition, you should support the legal prohibition of homosexual behavior." Why does the traditional argument against the morality of sexual behavior require one to favor the outlawing of homosexual behavior? Christian theology/philosophy provides only basic moral principles upon which the civil law is established, allowing the culture to breathe and develop naturally. It does not, like Islam, smother the culture with a ready made legal and social agenda customized to conform in every way to its theological dogmas. Your concerns are misplaced. What is to be feared is not old laws against homosexuality, which are dying out, but rather the new, anti-Christian, anti-freedom, hate crime laws, which are cropping up everywhere. In the West at least, Christians who criticize homosexual behavior have a lot more to fear from their governments than do homosexuals.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
SAR: Please, just simply read. I have answered. Your responses begin to sound like you want to pretend that the answer is not there. Let us not go down that road. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11 21

Leave a Reply