Well this is really annoying. Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration app from iTunes App Store in response to claims that the app was anti-gay. I’m not kidding. Read about it here (HT: James Kushiner).
Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George have written a letter to Steve Jobs about the removal of the MD app from the iTunes store. They promise to write an update when they receive a response. Here’s the statement that they released to supporters of the Declaration.
Some of you may be aware by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. This happened some time over the Thanksgiving holiday.
The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning it contained no objectionable material. Yet Apple pulled the app shortly after a small but very vocal protest by those who favor gay marriage and abortion.
We are urging Apple to restore the App, and have written to Steve Jobs. We will update you with developments as they arise.
Immediate updates will be sent via Facebook and Twitter. Stay tuned for more…
Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Heard about this earlier today. But if anything that basically expresses Biblical doctrine and biblical teaching on things such as sexuality is now deemed to offensive for the app store, then they better get rid of all the Bible apps themselves!
Sad that truth really does not matter anymore and large media and special interest campaigns can overwhelm truth, given that the MD app is not primarily or even remotely about being “anti-gay.” But label something that now and your sure to get the result you want.
The ‘Manhattan Declaration’ was designed to get a reaction.
Is anyone REALLY surprised?
This is only the second time that I have heard somebody mention the Manhattan Declaration in recent months. Like most of these kinds of statements, the Manhattan Declaration created a lot of discussion initially and has since been forgotten.
MD was not designed to be inflammatory or merely to “get a reaction”. It was designed to be a careful and thoughtful explanation of the Christian and Biblical perspective on abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia, marriage, sexuality and more.
For many years, our nation and culture embraced the ideals and concepts described in MD, but now that these affirmations are under relentless assault in the media and especially in our schools and academies, it is our responsibility to explain how and why these ideals are “not something to evolve from”, are important and worth preserving.
Denny, we really appreciate you covering this story. Every Christian should see that this is about more than loosing an iPhone applicationâ€“it is about being viewed fairly and being given equal access to voice our opinions. While Apple certainly has the right to remove the app, we do not believe it to be a prudent decision.
We are sharing updates of this story via Facebook (www.facebook.com/manhattandeclaration) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/manhattandec).
Come tell us what you think.
Somebody in the comments section of that article made a really good point:
The Manhattan Declaration is no more anti-LGBT than the Republican Party or Fox News, both of which have IPhone apps. If you’re going to take the Manhattan Declaration app out of the app store (really, there’s an app for that?), then really, Apple should just do away with any and all socially conservative apps period.
Or even DOMA which is federal law, or the view supposedly held by the President of the United States. Or the view of the overwhelming view of most Americans on the topic of gay marriage.
Yet we have arrived at a point in history in which Christians can’t adopt kids in part of Europe anymore because of their views on homosexuality.
Apple can’t have an inclusive corporate policy and then allow for the MD to be distributed on its platform. If your company said that it supported your marriage, but then allowed propaganda stating that your marriage was a sham would you trust them? Would you want people to use your company resources to ceaselessly vie against you and your way of life?
Nathan writes: “Apple canâ€™t have an inclusive corporate policy and then allow for the MD to be distributed on its platform. If your company said that it supported your marriage, but then allowed propaganda stating that your marriage was a sham would you trust them? Would you want people to use your company resources to ceaselessly vie against you and your way of life?”
This is not a very good argument. iTunes is a particular sort of business, one that distributes materials that are intended to communicate ideas, songs, lectures, information, etc. In a free society such as ours, one whose citizens as a matter of conscience believe a variety of things, we should expect a company that deals in these things to cater to a diverse constituency. When I taught at UNLV, it never occurred to me that the university had any obligation to not invite speakers, or sponsor courses or lectures, that were critical of my Christian faith. Why? Because it was a certain type of institution: a state university in which ideas themselves are contested and argued about.
As a Catholic at a Baptist university, I am happy that Baylor supports my right to be a practicing Catholic. But that in no way obligates Baylor to not offer classes, sponsor lectures, support student groups, and so on that offer an understanding of Christianity contrary to my Catholic faith. In fact, to harbor that expectation is a sign of gross immaturity.
I know many people who work at publishing houses that publish books that are critical of things these employees believe. I suspect that Chris Hitchens’ publisher has employees that are devout Christians. And yet, they published a book that not only claimed that Christianity is false, but harmful, wicked, stupid, and contrary to reason. Can one imagine what would have happened if a group of Christians called for the destruction of Hitchens’ book based on your reasoning? They would, rightfully, be laughed into oblivion.
If you don’t like the Hitchens book, publish a response. In the same way, if you don’t like the MD app, publish your own in reply. That’s the way free societies function.
Francis, you are comparing Apples to universities. Apple is not obligated to give its resources to be used to spread ideas that go against its policies. Yes, we live in a free society; MD supporters are free to use their own app network and electronic devices to make people aware of their opinion.
I’m surprised that people are so upset and annoyed by Apple pulling this app. Until you are in the crosshairs in the same way that homosexuals have been for eons, you won’t understand that, when applied to secular society, this kind of statement is very hostile: …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. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us…
It’s surprising to me that the very next section of the MD talks about religious liberty. I guess according to the MD you get religious liberty as long as you use that liberty to have a Christian marriage.
If the MD were for my church and not society at large, I would sign it with the brightest most indelible pen I could find. I’m a firm believer in the church influencing society by demonstrating to society the correct way to live rather than using legal coercion.
Apple once had an ad where they said that IBM was like Big Brother, stifling options. Now they have become Big Brother in their actions. As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king!”
As a company, Apple is supposed to act as a profit maximizer and this is just the result of a calculation they made.
It’s hard not to think of this as a modern day, tech version of “book burning”, which is of course legal, but also reflects a closed and narrow mind. Another great example of how modern day liberalism is very anti-liberal, i.e. opposed to a free exchange of ideas.
I still think the behavior represents a ‘reaction’.
Is there something about the MD that might have been ‘mis-interpreted’ to provoke a reaction?
I just raise the possibility.
In the ‘culture wars’, there are buzz words and phrases that are ‘code’ and sometimes the ‘code’ is deciphered by the opposition in such a way as to slam a door on dialogue.
Take another look at the MD.
Talk to people who were offended by it. Listen to how THEY FELT when they read it, and try to see it from their point of view.
This CAN be done.
The ‘culture wars’ will not last forever. Either good people will get past the ‘code’ mentality and communicate with other people respectfully;
or there may be a more cataclysmic ending,
but nothing as intense as the ‘culture wars’ can last indefinitely.
Christiane and Nathan,
Gay marriage legalization and normalization opens the door to faith based organizations and individuals being coerced and pressured and harassed to do things like give equal access to adoption and employment. One of the reasons young people favor gay marriage in greater proportion to that of their peers is that they don’t take these realities into account. This issue is going to have enormous long term implications for religious organizations, churches and individuals. Enormous pressure is being brought to bear on these groups already and this IS going to stifle free speech and faith oriented convictions about sexual behavior.
For you to regard this as inconsequential and then to echo the carefully orchestrated messaging emanating from only one side of the debate demonstrates that you either don’t care or are ignorant of the ACTUAL contours of the battle ground, who the actual aggressors are, and what the “spoils of war” are that in play here.
“Gay marriage legalization and normalization opens the door to faith based organizations and individuals being coerced and pressured and harassed to do things like give equal access to adoption and employment.”
And herein lies the rub.
Because Republicans are so eager to appeal to the social conservatives, they don’t approach the issue pragmatically.
Yes, the LGBT community has a huge and quite reasonable beef with the situation as it exists today on the issues of estate law and medical care, just to name two major ones.
Now, the social conservatives COULD work in tandem with their liberal counterparts to ensure that there are measures in legislation which ensure religious freedom. But that doesn’t produce drama on CSPAN, and it doesn’t get Sean Hannity foaming at the mouth on Fox, so instead they pound podiums and send out fliers with dudes holding hands.
Also, if Republicans actually WORKED with Democrats on these issues, we could also see more states accepting Civil Unions, keeping them separate from marriages while still imparting the same rights, therefore acknowledging the estate law issues while keeping marriage supposedly sacred.
But everything I just said would make sense, and that’s not fair.
Iâ€™ve had two comments deleted from this very thread. The first one made sense because I used an â€œiffyâ€ word. I donâ€™t agree with the second deletion. I simply gave three or four other types of apps (all about controversial cultural issues from history, of course) and asked which one would you allow if you owned an app service. If you disallow any of them, then you couldnâ€™t really claim â€œfree speech.â€ It looks like Denny agrees with Chuck Colson, who wants Apple to provide resources to people to spread messages that Apple does’t agree with, but Denny doesnâ€™t follow that advice in this instance. Denny HAS allowed a very wide range of views (including mine, thank you, Denny) to be posted on his blog. Perhaps, heâ€™s deleting my comments to illustrate a point.
I reread your post. It seems to me that you are equating members of Act Up as being a negative example of the gay population. So, you conclude it would be unfair to characterize all gay people based on your negative view of what you consider a subset of the gay population.
OK. I still stand behind my post because the “worst behavior and comments” from an Act Up activist were not made in a vacuum. They were a result of the bad policies surrounding the AIDS epidemic.
People can’t bemoan that some gays have become militant when they’ve been backing them into a corner for eons. When applied to a secular situation (civil marriage), I see the MD as being hostile toward homosexuals. It disallows them the right to exist in a way that makes sense to them. And it does that largely based on a religious opinion. Furthermore, it calls people to ceaselessly vie against homosexuals legally.
I’m surprised Apple didn’t reject it at first glance.
It was an overreaction for me to say that you were frothing at the mouth. I was using your terminology, but I apologize nonetheless.
That said, I stand behind the substance of what I said. If you really want to know why your comments in #15 won’t work, it is important to connect the dots on WHY ideologues on the left will not compromise. It takes two sides to compromise and you single out only the right, while the left is playing for keeps on this, vis-a-vis the courts and character assassination efforts.
Nathan, you said I see the MD as being hostile toward homosexuals.
I guess everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But really, the document was very carefully written in order to avoid any reasonable accusation that the document is inflammatory or hate mongering. The document was addressed to people who sincerely want to understand what the actual objections are to gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and more.
I realize that some people in our society have become so thin skinned that even a careful explanation of why we may object to gay marriage is deemed offensive, but in my opinion, that demonstrates how unreasonable and intolerant those individuals and groups are.
proof…pure and simple, that deep down, you know you have lost.
Derek, whether you realize it or not, among decent people, these are settled issues. Just as someone still trying to discuss the merits of slavery is outside the realm of acceptable and respectable topics of discussion, so are those who still adhere to the values in the Manhattan Declaration.
It is not thin skinned…it is being unwilling to discuss basic human rights as if they should be up for debate, or as if decent moral people (Which no, we do not consider you) are still discussing this.
Thus, it was removed.
Kelly’s illustrating the point I made earlier. There is no middle ground for many like her. She and others like her will not be satisfied until Christians are punished and/or silenced for holding a conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong.
And you’re refusing to address my specific points.
Here’s the problem. What you’re advocating is compromise on the part of liberals that want equal property and medical rights for homosexuals (as far as I’m concerned, the members of the LGBT community that scream for “nothing less than full fledged marriage” are doing themselves – and by extension – all of us – a disservice).
The problem is, there’s nothing for them to compromise on. I don’t think that you’re seeing that. So, let’s try an illustration, shall we?
two little kids are playing. One is wearing a red shirt, and his name is Reagan. The other one is wearing a blue shirt and is named Truman. Both great kids, everyone would agree.
Reagan is holding a ball. Truman wants to play with the ball.
If Reagan is willing to share the ball, he can put all sorts of conditions on how the ball can be shared. Truman can only ask to play with the ball. Truman has no ground to say he would play with the ball less than not playing with it at all.
Strangely, Reagan, at the moment, doesn’t want to share the ball. At all. If Truman really wants that ball, his only recourse will be to go tell the playground monitor that Reagan refuses to share the ball.
What will likely happen then is that Reagan will be forced to give the ball against his will to Truman, and then Truman can play with it however he wants, with no input from Reagan.
The problem that Reagan missed is that had he set the ground rules for how the ball could be played with, everyone could have played with the ball and had a say in how the ball got played with.
Only in America would little Reagan be able to get away with being a ball hog and then call the playground monitor names for giving Truman the opportunity to play with the ball.
So, for the THIRD TIME NOW, riddle me this, batman…why won’t the republicans come to the bargaining table and allow for civil unions with certain provisions for religious freedom?
Quit dodging it. Answer THAT question.
My answer remains the same as it was in 2004: this way, they can continue to tell the social conservatives that they’re fighting for them, and that they all have a common enemy. Makes for easy politics.
Out of curiosity…
You stated, “So, for the THIRD TIME NOW, riddle me this, batmanâ€¦why wonâ€™t the republicans come to the bargaining table and allow for civil unions with certain provisions for religious freedom?”
If I read your example right, isn’t asking for provisions for religious freedom the same thing as saying you can’t have the whole ball; just a portion. So, why would Truman still not go and cry to the playground monitor saying that Reagan will only give a portion of the ball (no matter how large the portion is)? And, if I read your scenaro right, according to the illstration, Reagan is still going to lose the ball.
That is, unless you’re saying that Truman only wants a portion (which is debatable) and is more magnanimous than Reagan (which is unknown).
So, you’re saying that the Republicans are clearly more concerned with being ball hogs than sharing responsibility for the ball?
All I’m saying is that on a good playground, it’s better to play catch with the ball (everyone getting to use it) than sitting in a corner with it all to yourself.
And if little Reagan wanted to say, let’s play catch, but when you throw it to me, it has to bounce twice, or I get to keep it, then that’s fair. But to ask Truman to go away without the ball at all is just to dare Truman to go to that playground monitor.
Funny how you went straight to Solomon cutting the baby in half instead of sharing responsibility.
Now, let’s take this off the playground and into real life:
The Republicans can either be politicians, and will eventually lose the gay marriage debate in all 50 states within 2-3 generations, with no say on religious freedoms, OR they can get their provisions into the bills in the first place, shrug their shoulders at the hardliners and realize that they did way more good than essentially waiting for the courts to hammer it out with an outcome that they’re none too happy with.
The “bargaining table” doesn’t exist. That’s what I’ve been explaining. Honestly, suggesting that there is a bargaining table demonstrates your lack of knowledge about this topic. Plus, you’re putting out a false premise here, that the left is interested in a compromise that will give them property and medical rights. There has never been a serious “bargaining partner” on the left and there never will be, because a) the center-left is not pushing for this and b) the type of thinking we’ve seen demonstrated by Kelly right here on this blog is characteristic of the ideologues that are driving this train. In any event, if there was an actual compromise, courts would soon strike the compromise down anyway. At the very least, it would get bogged down in a huge array of orchestrated legal challenges.
To the ideologues of the left, “compromise” is unacceptable because they see full fledged gay marriage and hate crime legislation as their Constitutional right, not as something that could or should be bargained for in a legislative deal-making process. This is precisely why the ballot measures they push for get rejected year after year in state after state – there is no hint of compromise and most older voters in particular know that doesn’t pass the smell test.
You don’t want me to talk about ideology here, but it is the proverbial elephant in the room. It can’t be ignored or pretended away by mere wishful thinking or by only focusing on the willingness/unwillingness of one of the parties (to compromise).
one thing that social conservatives AND fiscal liberals must come to grips with before this country implodes is that pragmatism is the educated person’s best friend.
Then again, this has got to be the only civilized country on the planet that celebrates its ignorance and mocks its intellectuals. So scrap everything I just said, I guess.
My point was merely that if Truman did want to play with the ball by bouncing it twice you are right back to the same issue. So, my concern is that the gay-marriage debate is not really about marriage (per se) but about altering culture altogether.
If civil unions were all that was desired there wouldn’t be a push for gay marriage. And with hate crime legislation being a large tag-on item, why would those of us in the church have any confidence that the church could (even if we compromied) speak out against homosexuality (even inside of church buildings only) without being accused of hate crimes (see Canada).
Paul, I got moderated out on a reply to you. Check back later for it.
you keep haranguing on the left without explaining why the right isn’t willing to get their hands a little dirty and make sure that their concerns are addressed. That’s why I keep saying that you’re dodging the question. And until you do that, you continue to dodge the question. Quit dodging it.
And insofar as hate crime/hate speech legislation goes, those are two different animals.
I agree that hate speech is a touchy subject. Religions (all of them, not just Christianity) should be able to make hay about all sins, not just the ones that make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. (in case you need an example, even Bernie Madoff could have been in church and not been offended by an anti-greed message) That’s going to hurt feelings, as well it should.
The problem is, for the most part, we don’t see people spray painting the walls of the University Club with anti-greed slogans. We do, however, see gaybashing occurring on a regular basis. While I am not gay, I am certainly glad that Chicago (my home town) has two huge gay neighborhoods where people can generally live their lives without fear. They might have to answer to God for their actions on judgement day, but for now, they can live comfortably. Maybe some on the right think even that’s a crime, but as Americans that live in a nation of laws, we should be glad that our fellow Americans have that right, and should wish for them to have that right no matter where they are, whether it be in Boystown, The Castro or in rural Idaho. Unfortunately, that’s not the case right now, and because it’s not the case, I don’t blame them for wanting hate crime legislation enacted. Yes, it WOULD be a good thing for someone to have to think about the fact that if it can be proved that they hurt or killed someone because of their ethnicity or lifestyle that it’s going to mean a stiffer punishment. Crimes of passion we’ll never get rid of. But if we can limit the crimes of intolerance or just plain stupidity, I, for one, would be a happy camper.
You’re not listening. I’m explaining why conservatives don’t have a bargaining partner or bargaining table to go to. Period. It can’t be explained or debated or understood without understanding who the players are and what their end game is. If you want to ignore this, be my guest, but you’re not dealing with the actual facts on the ground. Furthermore, to pretend that ideology doesn’t factor in is either disingenuous or naive or both.
Why would any Christian bargain someone into a life of unrepentant sin? That’s not love!
Derek – I think you’re absolutely wrong on that one. Yes, there are Kellys in the world who think that anything less than them getting their way is awful. They have a long and bitter life awaiting them. There are people who are pragmatists on both sides of the argument that realize that some good could come out of coming to the middle. Not all liberals are boogiemen.
Chris – you’re not bargaining someone into unrepentant sin. I doubt that many people in Vermont, Iowa, Hawaii or New Jersey have said, “What? same gendered relationships are recognized by the state? Let’s go be gay!” What you are doing, however, is allowing a fellow American their rights pass along medical care directives and property. This, in my mind, isn’t even a religious argument.
I made a distinction between the center-left and the ideological left.
Show me who the plausible and delegated bargaining parties on the left are, if you insist that I am exaggerating? And then, do they have the power to call off the dogs, i.e. the bevy of orchestrated legal challenges that would immediately assault whatever concessions that would be offered to conservatives? If those factors are in place, then you have the ingredients for some kind of compromise. If you don’t, then I’m not exaggerating.
Kelly’s actually right when she said in post #21 that in the circles she travels, this is not an issue that can be bargained – this is a matter of fundamental human rights. All the poker chips are on the table, winner take all. Compromise is a total non-starter. Supposing there was some kind of center-left politician that would address her crowd, announcing some kind of bargain, he/she would be lucky to make it off the proverbial stage alive.
Kelly if these are such “settled issues” among decent people (whatever that means).
Then why is the majority of the country still settled against gay marriage? Why is it illegal in the majority of states? Why did gay marriage even get rejected by the voters in a very liberal state like California?
It is a lame argument strategy to try and make your opponent feel antiquated and uninvolved. In reality this strategy often shows either an unwillingness to engage with actual ideas or an unfamiliarity with them.
Paul, true, it isn’t a religious argument. As far as I am concerned what the government does is up to the people.
However this is a Christian-based blog and as a Christian our faith does not stop when we participate in our political system. So in good faith supporting anything that encourages sin is not love.
This is all old hat on this blog and I believe both Paul and Kelly have asked for and been given arguments against gay marriage that are not grounded in religion.
Just to repeat, with 5,000 years of human civilization going on we have seen normatively that heterosexual marriage the keystone to the stability of societies and their procreation. The government has as much vested interest in the well being production of future generations as any other task including defense, and security. You can argue all you want but the data is clear that a stable, loving heterosexual marriage is the most ideal and beneficial environment to raise kids and maintain order in a society.
Of course this argument could be expanded but this is the jist of it. No religion as the secular, social case is strong enough on its own merits.
Even if we could get Kelly and her crowd to agree that this is reliable data, they will tell you that it doesn’t matter because the human race is evolving and it’s time to get on board or be left in the stone age.
You want to keep from 1% to 2% of the population from getting married because “stable, loving heterosexual marriage is the most ideal and beneficial environment to raise kids and maintain order in a society.”
What about the 30%+ divorce rate?
What about the X% single-parent households?
By your actions, you are not for protecting marriage and the family. You’re for denying homosexuals support to create stable, loving relationships for themselves.
What about the 30%+ divorce rate?
What about the X% single-parent households?
Separate issues Nathan, and tangents to distract from the vested interest governments have in sanctioning and promoting heterosexual marriages.
BTW Nathan, notice the propensity by people from your position to put words in the mouths of their opponents. I can’t recall anyone arguing for the denying of homosexual relationships…it is a free country. I simply made a case that the government has a unique and special interest in heterosexual unions for the sake of the union and future generations. Let’s read each other more carefully and be more generous in not putting words in others mouths.
But yet I suppose even in the face of reason Derek is right…
That’s the difference between you and many of us, Nathan. We believe that marriage is a sacred covenant made before God. Sadly, even many Christians don’t see marriage as a covenant before God and loosely enter in and out of it. That is a tragedy. I don’t believe for even one minute that God will bless or sanction a covenant between two men and two women. Indeed, it more likely has the effect of searing the conscience. That is tragic as well, especially if it happens on the pathway to hell, as it certainly will if there is no ultimate repentance and renunciation of the abominable covenant.
I believe that true marriage is a covenant made with God, on His terms. Itâ€™s not something the state can regulate. No law is going to keep someone out of hell. Didnâ€™t God already prove that with the OT law?
I’m with J.I. Packer on this one: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation.
I’m also with John Piper when he said in reference to gay Bishop Gene Robinson that we become a “minister of condemnation” when we bless a union that Scripture clearly condemns.
“Just to repeat, with 5,000 years of human civilization going on we have seen normatively that heterosexual marriage the keystone to the stability of societies and their procreation. The government has as much vested interest in the well being production of future generations as any other task including defense, and security. You can argue all you want but the data is clear that a stable, loving heterosexual marriage is the most ideal and beneficial environment to raise kids and maintain order in a society.”
Realistically though, that’s apples and oranges. You’d have a case, if, as I said before, there was a precedent in civil union/gay marriage states of heterosexuals suddenly becoming gay because now they can get married to someone of the same gender. I doubt that such a thing is happening though.
Instead, the government can still have a vested interest in ensuring that nubile men and women still want to procreate and make little babies that will grow up to join the army and/or pay taxes. The only part of this that I’m interested in is the effects on estate law and medical directives. As long as those are in jeopardy in the LGBT community, I think it’s nothing short of inhumane to at least not have civil unions on the table in all 50 states.
Paul you and I might be closer than we think.
I am fine with civil contracts between two people if they choose to link and share estates. In addition, in a secular democracy two people of the same sex are free to live together and have a life with each other. I am not in anyway here commenting on this from a Biblical perspective.
In the comments of mine that you quoted I am simply trying to convey that the government has a vested interest in providing incentives and a unique distinction for the primary means and environment in which children are raised and brought up. Just like the government provides subsidies and other incentives for agriculture, homeownership, or other things that we have empirical date helps society flourish.
Speaking strictly in a secular perspective, this is a strong argument to maintain the distinctiveness of marriage and the incentives that come along with it, as it provides a paramount civic good that human history has instructed us cannot be duplicated any where else.
Also as I have said here before there is technically no “right” being denied to gay people in not being able to marry someone of the same sex. Marriage has never had those paramaters and therefore the right has never existed. In order for a right to be denied it first must exist. Just like I am not having any rights denied in not being able to join a college sorority. The word sorority does not allow for the participation of someone of the male sex. I would first have to convince everyone to re-define the meaning of the word and institution to include men before a right of mine would be denied.
“I am fine with civil contracts between two people if they choose to link and share estates.”
So am I, until crazy fundamentalist Uncle Willie thinks that he has the right to challenge that contract in court because gays are evil, and since Uncle Willie is family and the contracted person isn’t, that contract can be challenged. The same is the case with medical directives and medical visitation rights. I know people that have experienced both of those scenarios, and it’s not cool.
Until there’s a federal law in place banning such challenges except in the case of real malfeasance, I’m going to have to be in favor of civil unions.
If a judge does allow the contract to be challenged, there is something else going on in the gay partnership, like manipulation or elder abuse or blackmail or mental illness or physical abuse or threat of physical violence, because no judge is going to honor Uncle Willy’s challenge if he doesn’t have a legitimate concern or beef.
No, Derek, that’s just it. There ISN’T an underlying reason sometimes (unless you’re going to question my credibility without reason again and tell me that my friends are lying).
Sorry Paul but Derek has some wisdom here. You are arguing from the extreme to base your position. Let’s say your mythical uncle Willie exists, he is equally matched by the wacko Kinsey follower on the other side.
The fringe is always a poor place to find your rationale for a public policy.
I didn’t accuse anyone of lying.
I do however find it interesting that in Paul’s mind, the default assumption is that a malicious or homophobic relative (Uncle Willy) is behind the scenes, yet he can’t entertain the possibility that a homosexual relationship might involve a domineering or abusive partner.
Judges are there to sort these kinds of disputes out on a case by case basis. I’m sure judges make mistakes like this every day, somewhere in America – including in heterosexual marriages where a judge might allow an abusive husband or parent’s rights to trump that of a biological parent or spouse.
This company does not care whether or not you support its positions as long as you continue to buy the hardware.
Why do we Christians flock to this lock -in. My suggestion use Android and Ubuntu Linux. Yes I know Google has given a lot to support liberal causes but the also are Open to contra-opinions! Ubuntu can be used on any hardware you want including Apple hardware. My friends at Dell will gladly sell you a nice Linux computer.
It seems to me that you are concerned with an undermining of the stability of society that only comes from traditional hetero-marriage. If that is the case, then I think that you have to deal with more than same-sex marriage. You have to deal with divorce and extra-marital sex. Those aren’t separate issues. I think the reason that you and others make them separate issues is because those issues hit closer to home than same-sex marriage. homosexuals make an easy target.
Nathan said: You have to deal with divorce and extra-marital sex. Those arenâ€™t separate issues.
Loosening or losing our concept of right and wrong is the wrong remedy. If we are having a discussion among Christians, this shouldn’t even have to be stated.
Our nation took a wrong turn when we reduced the importance of marriage by introducing “no fault” divorce. Huge mistake and we’re paying for it now. It is a perverse and sad thing that we have some making the bizarre claim that opening up marriage to anyone’s definition is going to remedy the mess we’re in. This isn’t even the kind of logic that should pass muster in a high school debate – it is a non-sequitur to assert that the legalization of gay marriage will help heterosexual couples get their act together. This is also a slap in the face to those who do honor and bless their church, their community and world by honoring God in their marriage. In any event, the legalization of same sex marriage has accomplished one big thing where it has been employed, like in Sweden where marriage as an institution is dying.
Ryan, I said among decent people. Not always the majority. 🙂 I am a southerner. I promise you that in big sections of the deep south, until very recently in the grand scheme of things, that if racia civil rights were up for a vote, the majority would have voted against them.
As I said, decent people, and the young and educated, who know more gay people (younger people grew up with them on TV, as teachers, openly gay relatives, etc, in a way my generation did NOT, and the situation among the educated in university, college and for that matter, corporate life is well known) are pro gay rights and pro gay marriage. My younger relatives know better, whereas my uncles HONESTLY believe (As they were taught) that gay people are child molesting perverse freaks + a dozen other sterotypes.
They are, as well as being VERY uncomfortable with women who are not dependent on men, racial diversity, and religious divesity, all of which they admit make them unhappy, OLD.
back in the 90’s California voted to oppose gay marriage by over by 61.4 %
The last vote, it was by 52% of the vote.
Derek…you may want to be a bit less hard on Sweden. A child raised by an unmarried couple has a better chance of being raised to adulthood by both unmarried parents than a child with heterosexually MARRIED parents here.
Everyone knows that evangelical protestants divorce at the same rate as the general society, and most of my evangelical friends have as messed up marriages (in the deep south) as my other neighbors and friends.
Do ya really think that the divorce rate in Spartanburg, the family breakdown, the unwed motherhood statistics, are due to ALL the MASSIVE gay influnece there?
It would be a better world if the evangelicals got their own house in order before they attack other peoples marriages! Thank you very much. Of coure, the subject does offer a good distraction, doesn’t it?
And you wonder why Apple prudently removed the Manhattan Declaration, and why so many of the people who use tech the most, the young and well informed, are so offended by it.
Talk about cultural tone deafness.
Kelly said, “Do ya really think that the divorce rate in Spartanburg, the family breakdown, the unwed motherhood statistics, are due to ALL the MASSIVE gay influnece there?”
Kelly, you should also read Derek’s reply which hits the nail on the head. What he said was the no-fault divorce has been a major component of the breakdown of the family in this country. He also said that allowing gay marriage is not going to reverse the issues of marriage that no-fault divorce brought in.
“It would be a better world if the evangelicals got their own house in order before they attack other peoples marriages! Thank you very much. Of coure, the subject does offer a good distraction, doesnâ€™t it?”
Evangelicals are not attacking other people’s marriages (other than to point out the disaster of no-fault divorce). There is no gay-marriage (voted in by the people of this land) so quit acting as if it is law of the land.
Gays are attacking marriage and the family. Why don’t they come up with their own institution because they certainly can’t replicate marriage. Yet, they are destroying it.
As far as Apple goes. They are free to do what they want. If people want to bow at the feet of Steve Jobs, let them. I can exist just fine without Apple.
When did I say that? Kelly, don’t put words in other people’s mouths. It is deceptive to make your debate opponent look like they said something that was never uttered.
I clearly blamed heterosexuals and Christians for the divorce rate. Yet it is a bizarre and illogical jump to suggest that gay marriage is a social or moral good on that basis – total non-sequitur.
Kelly your comment implying that the majority of people are not “decent” and you deeming who is and is not decent smacks of self-righteousness and moral snobbery.
I would caution you against being the arbiter of what is good and what is evil. In fact this is usually the role we reserve for God. I really do not mean to come off as harsh but I find it appalling you would imply that most Americans are not decent people just because they don’t agree with your subjective moral standards. Romans 1 is ringing in my head right now.
No Ryan. It just poits out that the majority are currently bigots. Just as the majority in the south once were.
Simple as that. 🙂
It is not moral snobbery to point that out any more than when I tell one of my 72 year old relatives that if uese the the “N” word again, he can leave the family gathering. You think you can vote on someone eleses family and its legal protections, and dare accuse another human being of self-0righteousness? Wow…the irony.
As per letting God be the judge of such things, I agree! I think you should have the personal right, based on your denominations teachings, to not enter into any marriage, and if your a pastor, not to officiate at it. It is how your denomination interprets scripture.
Guess what? Mine, and the Lutherans,and the Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, and many other churches, beleive that we are CALLED by God to Love God, Do Justice, and walk humbly with God. And we believe that this call for justice includes all people, including Gay ones, and thus a respect for their rights and their families.
Your view is not “THE” Christian view. It is the Southern Baptist one, and you do not speak for the church universal any more than I do. You think you are right. I think I am right. And in a fair and just society, neither of us should be able to tell the other (or other persons, in this case) who to marry, if the marriage would not impinge on any of the individuals involved. (Note, before the old saw is brought out…yes, any individual who is an adult, can make free decisions, and the marriage will not directly hurt someone else…such as a child born with serious defects due to inbreeding, or plural marriage, which has been shown to hurt most of the women involved in it. Thank you)
Nate, the MD was a piece, one of the goals of which, was to hurt the civil rights cause of gay marriage.
“gays are attacking marriage and the family” A lie…plain and simple. That is not an opinion, that is a slanderous lie. Gay people HAVE marriages, in 5 states of the union, and our Capital. Gay couples and people have kids! They do not want to DESTROY the institution! Who wants to hurt the people they love? In VT and NH and Conn by the way, the peoples represenatives, the state legislatures, voted them in. No court ruling. It is called a represenative democracy, and many conservatives are fond of pointing out that we live in a republic, not a pure democracy. Although I find the idea that soemthign so basic can be voted on…disturbing. When do my rights get vote on? Scary thought.
Are the civil rights of racial minorities and religious minoriteis that were protected by courts and not the vote of the majority not real either?
Your anger is making flaws in your logic. No gay marriages? Not the law of the land? Please. For millions, yeah, it already is.
As per setting up their own institutions…you mean like civil unions, which (aside from being at best a separtate but equal thing) the Southern Baptist Convention has fought tooth and nail.
Derek. I pointed out that a group that has failed by almost every measure (conservative Christians) in their own homes (stats back me up here) has put out a statement denigrating other peoples marriages and families “in the kindest of terms” (hardly). The implication of this warning againt recognizing gay marriages, and of so much conservative talk, is that when gay marriage is legal everywhere, and not just a few states, heterosexual marriage/family/culture will be ruined. I was just pointing out that we have messed up enough on out own. I give you credit for your honesty in admitting that we have done so, and I apprecaite that. But my point that the MD was basically a call to be aware of the “danger” to insitutions that are already falling apart fasted in the most conservative and Christians states, and that this is just…sad, stands.
Now, since we live in glass houses (my denominations marriage stats are almost as bad)..why do you think you should be able to ruin other peoples lives and prevent them from getting legal recognition for their families?
Would you like it if someone did it to you?
Freedom for us, but not for them?
It is a fair question. And I have never heard one good answer for it.
Kelly your pronouncements that the majority of people are bigots to me is just shocking.
Truth be told, this is the strategy that I mentioned in my earlier post of just labeling and name calling rather than engaging the actual arguments and evidence. I posited an secular argument for why the government has a vested interest in maintaining marriage as between a man and women, but I notice there is not engagement with there.
In addition, I also addressed your absurd notion that people are bigots because they do not support gay marriage (see comment 45). Yet no engagement there.
And one more time, lets refrain from putting words in others mouths are a tactic to prove your point. Nowhere did I say I was giving the “THE” Christian view on the subject. Yet outside of very modern and recent liberal interpretations of basically teaching “oh what Paul said he really did not say” no one has ever understood the Bible to teach homosexuality was permissible. This is where church history serves us quite well in our urges to usurp Scripture and make it want to fit our agendas and opinions rather than us conforming to Scripture.
I think we have been around this block before Kelly and don’t think there is much progress to be made, but I think you can do better than just name-calling and labeling people as un-decent and bigots just because they do not align with your subjective moral impulses.
On the authority of God’s Word, you are a minister of condemnation, Kelly. You are like the false prophetess spoken of by Christ in Revelation 2:20, who literally encouraged Christians to engage in sexual immorality. I Corinthians 6:9-11 describes certain things that characterize those who are heading in the wrong direction and you arrogantly and haughtily dismiss this. You have in doing so, placed yourself above the authority of Scripture. In other words, Scripture answers to you and not the other way around. While none of us are perfect and we all fall short of God’s perfect standards, we should tremble in horror to even consider such an idea as sickening as to blaspheme God’s Word by celebrating what God says marks and characterizes the lifestyle choices of those destined for eternal and unquenching destruction.
Kelly: “Your anger is making flaws in your logic. No gay marriages? Not the law of the land? Please. For millions, yeah, it already is.”
You are so removed from reality on this subject matter that it becomes impossible to have a conversation with you. At least have the credibility to say you want marriage redefined to be anything and everything.
Gay marriage is not marriage, it is a redefinition, period. Gays CANNOT have children, period. Yes, they can adopt or have in-vetro, but the two that are “married” CANNOT procreate together, period. They are then, seeking to redefine an institution that they have cannot participate in, unless they participate in a heterosexual way. This is the truth that you refuse to admit.
The institution of marriage has always (see in the history of the world) been about the procreation of the next generation and to establish a familial line. Just because extreme radicalism has redefined that doesn’t change my original statement.
Further, you refused to address the issue of polygamy and we won’t even go into polyamory, because the gays don’t want those “sects” mentioned for fear the general public will see them (the gays) for what they are; usurpers of an institution that they cannot replicate. And just because polygamy is in the bible and has been practiced around the world (in very small numbers) does not make it the normative mode of marriage. Just ask the state of Utah.
“On the authority of Godâ€™s Word, you are a minister of condemnation, Kelly. You are like the false prophetess spoken of by Christ in Revelation 2:20, who literally encouraged Christians to engage in sexual immorality.”
It’s name calling to call someone a bigot, but not to call them a “minister of condemnation”?
Just because you use language that you learned at John Hagee’s kids’ camp doesn’t make it any less offensive. Lay off the rhetoric Derek. There’s a huge difference between seeing the harm in government interfering in estates and medical directives and telling people to go out and be gay.
I’m not trying to be insulting or melodramatic. And I don’t have any use at all for John Haggee.
On the day of judgment, it will be shown that it will be better to be a practicing homosexual than to be one who wears a clerical collar and acts the part of a spiritual authority and at the same time celebrates and indeed promotes that which Scripture clearly condemns. The danger of doing so cannot be overstated.
Kelly calling the majority of the population bigots is groundless and was void of any argument other than not meeting her subjective moral standards
While you may disagree with Derek equating Kelly in being a “minister of condemnation” it is far from “rhetoric” as you said, since he supported it with textual evidence and an argument from Scripture. Now you are free to disagree but trying to equate what Kelly did and Derek’s comments is just off base.
No truly Christian defense of marriage is going to concentrate solely on excluding gay marriage. We need to take the hard line on divorce and extramarital sex, too. If you think that the Christian view of marriage should be legally enforced (which I do not), you shouldnâ€™t, IMO, leave out these other problems. It is silly to me to be concerned about the 2% (max) of the population that will supposedly violate your idea of marriage when 30% or more are already doing that. Your finger is in the dike, but youâ€™re already under water.
I donâ€™t think that gay marriages will undermine marriage at all. That would be like me saying that those practicing Buddhism in America are undermining my religion. People in America need the freedom to live according to their own conscience. I think that any threat of (or realization of) gay people taking away Christian freedoms is actually a backlash against the concerted effort to disallow the existence of homosexuals.
It might seem that Iâ€™m saying that we need to beef up our defense AND tear it down. I think that for me, my family and my church, we need to stick by the biblical definition of marriage as closely as possible. We need to serve and honor God with our lives. For my town, my state and my country, I think that we need to allow people freedom to live peaceably in accordance with oneâ€™s own conscience. An American freedom allows citizens to do just that with something EVEN MORE BASIC than marriage: the deity one serves. So it seems unreasonable to me to create this limitation based on the premises that Iâ€™ve seen presented when you would have to accept from your perspective that those premises are also true for non-Christians in general.
Ryan – does Derek know Kelly’s heart? Tried to engage her in conversation outside of a religiously and politically charged topic on the comments section of a blog? What? No? Then he doesn’t know her heart or her motives and has no business hurling hyperbolic thunderbolts in her direction. It might make him sound like a great televangelist, but it hardly makes him seem like any sort of compassionate Christian.
And with that, I’m done. If this is the tone and the personality that the SBC breeds, then you can have it. I’m saved, I’m secure in my salvation, and I don’t need some hyped-up seminary student squawking about evil liberals and the like.
It is a common fallacy that “morals can’t be legislated”. In fact, all laws are grounded in someone’s belief about what is morally good and beneficial for society. Christians should not feel guilty about their moral framework or grid, unless it means that it means imposing specific worship practices on your neighbor. That is wrong and the framers well understood and articulated that.
A non-Christian who believes that private property should be abolished, or pot legalized, or gay marriage established, is not going to set his beliefs aside. In years past, people had strong convictions about the legality or immorality of slaveholding and it would have been absurd to say, “my convictions about this are ultimately based in my religion, so I won’t vote for politicians or laws that pursue the abolition of slavery”. We don’t need to apologize for our convictions either. If we don’t stand up for them, we can’t expect anyone else to.
Finally, Nathan, it isn’t my marriage or yours that I’m concerned about. It’s the effect that this will have on the next generation, and as I articulated earlier, and the effect it will have on churches and adoption agencies and other faith based organizations.
You’re right, I don’t know Kelly’s heart. I’m not judging her heart, I’m judging her words. By her own words, she has declared herself an authority over God’s Word. Furthermore, she has in past blog entries described herself as a ministry leader or pastor.
I have two friends who were convinced by religious people or leaders that it was perfectly fine for them to be a practicing homosexual and Christian at the same time. This is no laughing matter or abstract issue to me. I grieve at the choices my friends made and hope and pray that God will help them to see that they were deceitfully taught and led by a charlatan and/or angel of light, just as we see described by Christ in Revelation 2:20.
No Paul…you need to learn something.
You may want to go to Dr. Mohlers site and read/listen to some of his comments on where the culture has moved on this (and the Church, big C).
When you act like a bigot…and supporting the Manhattan Declaration makes you one…you WILL be called on.
It is just an honest assessment. Not an attack.
Make some of the comments about gay people I regularly read on this posting site, and most of the coprorate 500 will fire you. This would be because you are acting/speaking in a bigoted manner that is bad for business.
You are not on the moral high ground. That is one point.
Removing that heinous MD app was prudent and good business. That is the other.
I see you as a bigot. It is not an insult. It is an honest assessment. And I am far from alone, and part of the rising majority.
No need to shoot the messenger.
Like it or not, I am right you know.
my regrets…I said Paul, I MEANT to respond to Ryan, in reference to his “shock” about the majority.
Nate…if that is the best you can do, I have already won. I DID mention polygamy, when I pointed out a lack of support for plural marriages because they have been shown to hurt the women in them 🙂
As for anybody being divorced from reality…well, if the stats from Barna (conservative Christian researcher) Gallup and others have ANY valididty at all, I should say I am one of the few here who is in touch with reality, and which way the continents are (not that slowly) drifting.
Lastly Ryan…there is NO engagement on people who do not support gay marriage being bigots for the same reason there is no engagement with the Klan over the role of racial minorities in society.
It is settled among educated decent people. They do not think so about their prejudice. You do not think so about your prejudice.
It is what is, and guess what, that is how you will be seen in the future. Don’t realize it yet? Go and research some of Dr. Mohlers posts. I disagree with him on a lot, but he is not self deluded, I will give him that.
So, get used to being addressed this way, by the majority in business, education, entertainment, and the majority of the young already. And with time, the majority overall.
Your an internet troll Kelly.
If anyone has any question about the tragic results of changing God’s word to fit our beliefs they only have to look at Kelly’s posts. Hopefully the woman behind them is much more attuned to God’s word than her rhetoric suggests! Otherwise she and those that agree with her are in real trouble!
This piece of hyperbole is a good demonstration of what we’re dealing with. Opposition to gay marriage is no better than Klan membership – very nice.
If and when Kelly’s tribe and their ideology is truly dominant, we will be in dark times indeed.
You see something wrong with letting a child be adopted by a gay couple. Why? Because they will teach the child that it is OK to do something sinful?
Won’t Buddhist families do the same thing?
I understand that immorality has consequences. Americans are free to be immoral in all sorts of ways. You would approve of allowing some of those ways and others you would not. I think you draw the line, in this case, based on misinformation and bigotry.
To say that allowing gay marriage will ruin a generation, when we’ve never seen a generation exposed to it is ridiculous. Please don’t site any statistics about the problems experienced by the gay community in general because those are arguments against gay promiscuity NOT gay marriage. Don’t say that gay people really don’t want a monogamous relationship because there are plenty of straight people who have open marriages (either knowingly or otherwise).
I am with you on your concerns about squelching the church’s voice against homosexuality — although I think the church has a very long way to go to have a consistent, fair and accurate voice regarding homosexuality. In general, the church should say that it is a sin and that the wages of sin is death. They should be able to exclude any person from their membership based on actions the person has done — being gay married, being married after a divorce, cohabitating, etc. etc. I may not agree with an individual church’s stance on their membership criteria, but it’s their perogative.
Any push that you see against allowing these church freedoms to continue is a backlash against the garbage that the church has allowed to take place and has perpetrated itself. It is also a backlash against a power that is trying to control society based on a religious opinion and bad reasoning.
I do believe that one sin begets another. The problems that we are seeing between homosexuals and the church today are a result of Christians’ sinful response to homosexuality in the past.
I didn’t say it would “ruin a generation”. Does it have to be apocalyptic in order to oppose it?
The normalization of homosexuality is not going to be a good thing for my children and their children. I think it is sad that any Christian would not see this. It makes me think of Lot and his family – they were so surrounded by depravity that eventually they just shrugged their shoulders. Christians can and will survive in the midst of sexual immorality (we are already there), but it is far from the ideal, and as we see in Corinthians, a sexually immoral culture does seep into the church like an environmental/atmospheric toxin and to think or suggest otherwise is to put blinders on.
And yes, I do have a problem – a big problem – with a Catholic or Christian adoption agency not getting to make moral decisions about who they will work with and not work with, be it a Buddhist or Muslim or secular or gay couple. It doesn’t seem to me that you’ve really taken the time or energy to fully grasp the dimensions of this issue and how it would affect faith based organizations, to be honest. And this is the case with many other young Christians, who have only listened to the well rehearsed talking points from one side of this debate. I am truly convinced that if they could hear the case for and against gay marriage debated with more of the short and long term implications laid out, we wouldn’t see the kind of support (for gay marriage) that Kelly is celebrating.