Man. Dec. iPhone App hits a nerve

Comments  23

• Stephen G. Davis Sr. 23 Nov

  Billy,
  Is there any chance that this application could be written for the Blackberry?
  Steve

• Billy Atwell 23 Nov

  Steve, we're hoping to offer a Blackberry app some time soon, but it's not something we can do right now.  Droid users have been pleased with the way the website works with their smartphone.  We are donation-based, so the more generous our donors are the more we can offer the signers. 

• Wren 23 Nov

  You're right about the lack of dialogue from the radicals. I, as an opponent of your views, would rather ask others who oppose your views to download your app and disagree with your survey as I'm sure you're collecting the info from the survey to substantiate the popularity of your views.
  
  I believe Google calls that app bombing, but we'll see if anyone else had the same idea.

• daderade 23 Nov

  I don't think you people understand the true meaning of the word 'love'. Perhaps you should consider reading the New Testament when you have the chance. Saying you 'love' someone doesn't hide the fact (from Jesus) that you treat them as lesser people than the rest of your neighbors.
  
  No one needs to "deserve" equal rights, that's absolutely silly. They are called equal for a reason. It's like the concept of grace. Everyone is entitled to it, no matter who you are or what you've done.
  
  You've twisted the words of someone who only meant for us to truly love one another into another tool in which you try to further your own personal agenda.

• Meredith 23 Nov

  Anyone who lives deserves rights. Why should a gay man NOT get the protections a legal marriage offers such as visitation rights, taxation, and other legal benefits that come with a legal marriage (churches can decide themselves who to marry and its of no concern to the LGBT community as there are plenty of churches that do perform same sex marriages) Same goes with protection against hate crimes for the LGBT community.
  
   As for abortion you refuse to understand the medical science behind everything and clearly cannot distinguish between a zygote and a baby, of which there are vast differences. Because of this arguing with you about abortion is pointless as you would refuse to listen to anything I would say on the subject.
  
  The characterization of christians as hateful is  largely innacurate but also something the fundementalists have brought upon themselves.

• Tyson 24 Nov

  Sure, the Declaration may state "... we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity," but look at what you are doing.  Your actions speak way louder than your words.  Examine the Manhattan Declaration critically and it is easy to see how this document is produced from a position of ignorance and misinformation.  Although I may ask, plead, and pray that you read this critically and with even the slightest possibility that those of us who say this is harmful aren't crazy, that maybe we have very legitimate concerns, it probably won't do any good.  I am deeply saddened and disturbed by the Manhattan Declaration.  I pray those who are in support of this someday find how to truly love their neighbors.

• Walter 24 Nov

  I seriously wish Android apps would have this.  Do you know if the Android market has this app?  Thanks.

• Jayhuck 25 Nov

  You're app has hit a nerve with  all thinking, caring and compassionate people.  There have been numerous papers, articles, blog posts written,  pointing out exactly why homosexuals deserve equal rights, and the history of Christianity alone has multiple examples to illustrate clearly just how religious people can and do hate.  Disagreeing with someone over religious views is one thing, but legislating your religious views so those who don't believe as you do then have to fall in line with your beliefs is wrong and most definitely not Christian. Gay people are asking to be treated equally when it comes to SECULAR marriage.  Gay people may already be married in churches all over this great land.  It is a question of whether the secular state should actually recognize them. 
  
  I find it laughable that with all that has been said on the issue of gay marriage, often by thoughtful people, you have the nerve to dismiss as the rantings of radicals who don't back up what they say, when in fact they do!  Shame on you

• Kelly A. Nickell 25 Nov

  As a radical liberal, I would like to say a few things that may help you understand my position. First, I believe that the sanctity of life can only be protected by making good choices; I don't believe those can be mandated in law, or decided by a judge. They can only be made with the gentle persuasion that comes from humanity. That liberal means having an open mind to solving problems through the use of choice, the one thing God has no control over, but influences every day. Unity, not division; inclusion, not exclusion.
  
  I believe that no one person has the ability to judge his fellow man at this level; it is Gods job alone to judge, and that each and every one of us will at some point stand before that judge and have our decisions played back to ourselves for an eternity of accepting or denying them. That no one should usurp that role in furthering his or her own biases and fears in demonizing another soul as "wrong" or "unholy."
  
  If your role here is to place other human beings in harms way because of your own biases and fears, then you sir have crossed a line into God's territory yourself; one for which one day means, you too will have to stand before the all knowing judge, in defense of your own judging decisions.
  
  I believe it is up to you to make good decisions. This trite little thing you've created here doesn't appear to be one of them. I can imagine God shaking his head, but it is not truly mine to know if this is true or not.

• Joseph R. Yungk 26 Nov

  Is there a reason that a religious organization and Apple get to tell me whether I'm the moral one?
  
  This is The United States of America and I have a constitution saying I don't have to be subjected to someone else' religion.
  
  quite Sincerely,
  
  Joseph R. Yungk

• bigbowood 26 Nov

  I appreciate your stance that your belief that you love everyone with equal dignity, but unfortunately by definition your actions prove otherwise.  

  If you really did love everyone with equal dignity, you would not be investing your time and energy (and often lots of money) in denying people the right to freedoms you experience simply because you don't understand why that person should be granted those freedoms (or why they would want them, simply because they don't have the same belief system as you).  I understand that you likely believe that being gay is a choice... even if it is (and I personally don't think it is), SO WHAT!?!  It is each individual's choice to make, and nobody else's.  You know what else is a choice?  Getting married in the first place.  Opposite-sex couples are allowed to make that choice to bind themselves in a legal union to one another.  Same-sex couples simply want to be treated with equal dignity by being afforded right to make that same choice. 

  If your religion's belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, I understand and respect that.  Not all religions hold this belief, however.  For centuries, marital traditions have varied from culture to culture and from religion to religion.  Same-sex couples aren't asking for religious right to marry... they're asking for the LEGAL right, and there is a distinction between the two.  Loving others with equal dignity would mean that you respect the concept that your religious beliefs are not necessarily those of others, and that you're ok with that.  

  You, like I, have freedom of speech at your disposal, and I truly respect that.  Say whatever you like about homosexuals, if you must.  But at least be honest with yourselves and others that you are not, in fact, loving everyone with equal dignity.

• Drew Hall 29 Nov

  "everyone did what was right in their own eyes"  How true this is of our generation.  The farther we move away from the Scriptures as the Word of God the more we become our own god, we get to choose what is right and wrong.
  
  He is God.  He decides what is right and wrong.  Who are you to talk back to God?  Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?  Homosexuality is an obvious and open rebellion against God and His created order.
  
    Father, please forgive our nation for turning away from you.  Please give your people strength to stand up for you and your truth and even though the world will hate us for telling them the truth, because they hate you, let us not be silent but let us give them your truth with gentleness and respect.  Knowing that Christ also suffered that we might be saved so let us rejoice in suffering that perhaps you might grant them repentance and free them from the snare of the devil.  Amen!

• DJ 29 Nov

   There is no rational, reasonable, or scientifically supportable reason to treat gay people differently than you would want to be treated. The only excuse for prejudice and discrimination remains in a few questionable religious texts, which have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over time, and which are contradicted by other verses including the most important one according to Jesus, namely that you love God and love others the same. Accepting alternate interpretations of those few verses that seem to condemn same sex love does not require abandoning your religious beliefs, only expanding them to include the idea that god created all things, including gay people, and he wants you to love them as you love him, not judge them.

       To impose suffering on another person, based on a few questionable texts, is a violation of the most important rule. Harming others is immoral.

       You can overcome the anti-gay beliefs you were taught as a child, even though they continue to be taught by some adults who claim to speak for God, if you choose to educate yourself with reality, not false beliefs. But if you choose to continue to condemn gay people, you will bring harm and hate to the world instead of love, as Jesus intended.

• Bryan 29 Nov

   "The farther we move away from the Scriptures as the Word of God the more we become our own god, we get to choose what is right and wrong."
  
  Indeed. Fundamentally, this is about ultimate authority. Who has it--Jehovah, or men?

• JLG 29 Nov

  Wow. Most of the comments here certainly lend credence to the article's claims.
  
  If the ManDec iPhone app is "hate speech" against homosexuals, then the arguments for oxymoronic "homosexual marriage" are hate speech against traditional marriage, culture, and history. Apple, and other pro-gay organizations, are not about equal rights, they're about special rights for homosexuals, and reduced rights for non-homosexuals. It's no longer enough to be tolerant; you must also approve and encourage. Fail to do so, and you are labeled as hateful--and everyone knows it's perfectly OK to hate a hater.
  
  Oh...unless you're a serious follower of Christ, in which case you're supposed to love the haters. You don't have to approve or encourage their behavior, but you're supposed to love them. In other words, exactly what the ManDec says.

• Albert Mendonca 30 Nov

  Wow.
  
  All the Christian haters have got together here on a pro christian site and proving conclusively who is hate ridden.
  
  Homosexuality is a skewed behavior and you don't need any science to approve or disapprove it. Look at the order around you and try using your common sense. And for those using the ridiculous (really) argument of god, how much of time have you spent listening to god? What have you heard? Or do you only believe in the tangibles as representation of god's words? Try going to a retreat and let his words speak to your heart and see what he is saying. And he'll speak loud enough.
  
  Ditto with abortion. What a pity that a huge chuck of americans believe they are gifted with sex for pure pleasure and the output of such an activity is not even a baby. People you have got too far with your nonsensical science, which is exactly what happens when you have a lop sided growth devoid of any faith rootings.
  
  I pity the enormous leaders of america who are leading their folks to sheer darkness. Again look at the various occurrences in the bible to see what becomes of such a society. You still have to time to contemplate and realize the absolute truth.

• Oscar 09 Dec

  I'm confused as to why you've put "women's rights" in inverted commas. Do you not believe women should have rights either? I mean, that they do has been socially acceptable for about a hundred years, which is usually long enough even for the Church to finally admit that it agrees with the general consensus.

• Billy Atwell 10 Dec

  Oscar, the reason I put "women's rights" in quotation marks is because what DiBranco calls a "right" and what I call a "right" are very different things. 
  
  DiBranco isn't fighting for the rights of women to vote, work, etc.  He thinks abortion is a "right" and if you read his writing, that is principally what he refers to when he blogs as a "women's rights" blogger.  If he blogged about legitimate rights, unlike abortion, than perhaps I would give him credit as a "rights" blogger. What's legal and what is a right are drastically different things.
  
  I hope that clarifies my position.
  
  Billy Atwell

• chris 15 Dec

  DJ,
  The most important rule:  "Harming others is immoral."
  
  Let's be intelligent about this.  So when I held down my 9 month old child and the doctor stuck a needle into her against her will and obvious protests, we were being immoral because she was harmed by us?
  
  Or does that just apply to emotional harm?  When the eighth graders I work with apply and are rejected by the highschool of their choice, the highschool is being immoral because it harmed them?  
  
  The problem seems to be that you don't have more than a sentimental definition for love.  Loving means to will the good for a person.  It is in that respect possible to love someone fully as much as someone else, even if you don't will them precisely the same things.  You call that "inequality," -which it is-  but it is not synoymous with "injustice."  I can love my 13 year old son as much as my 18 year old daughter.  If I lend her the keys to my car, and not him, I am treating them unequally.  I am not however loving either of them less; nor am I being unjust. 

• Oscar 08 Jan

  Mr Atwell, you stated that ". What's legal and what is a right are drastically different things."
  I assume that you also believe that rights are God-given.
  With these thoughts in mind, do you believe that people have the rights to keep slaves? Because that idea is at least as Biblically sound as the apparent prohibition on homosexual behaviour.
  

• SW 08 Jan

  This comment is for Meredith from Nov 23 though she may never see it....
  
  You posted: "As for abortion you refuse to understand the medical science behind everything and clearly cannot distinguish between a zygote and a baby, of which there are vast differences"
  
  As for not understanding medical science here's some for you.  By approximately four days after fertilization, the zygote has about 100 cells and is called a blastocyst (therefore no longer a zygote...).  I'm not sure that any woman knows in four days or less after having sex that she's pregnant and she certainly is not having an abortion at that point.  Secondly, the heart begins to beat approximately 18 days after conception.  That's a mere 2 and a half weeks after conception and the woman is not yet even a week late for her period.  Again, I'm not sure what woman would know she's pregnant before she even misses her period and in all likelihood by the time she does realize, she has not just one heart beating in her body but at least two.  Now, I'm of the belief that having a heartbeat constitutes life.  That is how we determine the life or death of a person.  The fact is that it is a being with a heartbeat that is aborted and not just some mass of cells.  
  

• Mike P 23 Mar

  "To impose suffering on another person, based on a few questionable texts, is a violation of the most important rule. Harming others is immoral."
  
  We impose such suffering on a much shallower basis.  Look at what happens to people who get caught on "To Catch a Predator."  Now go find a verse in the Bible that says, "You shall not have sex with a postpubescent girl under 17 years of age."  Can't find it?  That's because it's not there.  The age of consent is a legal standard that we as a society have agreed to impose on the population, no matter what "harm" it may do to men or women who are attracted to someone underage.  There is no specific biblical verse or biological justification to disallow sex with a postpubescent girl, no matter how young.  To say a 17-year old has enough understanding for consent, but a 16-year-old doesn't, is totally arbitrary.  (Note:  I'm of the mind that sex for anyone under 18 should be legally forbidden, period, so please don't think I'm justifying child predators.)
  
  But at least we can look at the plain fact that male anatomy is not made to interact sexually with other male anatomy, or female with female, and judge on that basis, "Hey, something's wrong here." And the Bible's verses confirming this are by no means "questionable" in their descriptive terms: "abomination," "unnatural," "vile."

• Mike P 24 Mar

  "...do you believe that people have the rights to keep slaves?  Because that idea is at least as Biblically sound as the apparent prohibition on homosexual behaviour."

  Jesus makes clear in the New Testament, when tightening the conditions under which divorce could be legitimately procured, that some things in the Old Testament law (e.g., divorce for any cause, slavery, polygamy) were permitted because the Israelites in Moses' time were too hardened in their hearts to give them up.  But homosexual conduct is condemned in both the Old Testament (Lev 20:13) and the New Testament (Rom 1:26-27), demonstrating a clear consensus between the texts that homosexual conduct is wrong.  (A reader may look up the verses in question to see whether the prohibition on homosexual behavior is clear or merely "apparent.")