13 Comments that Put dboncan in My LGBT Spotlight

Dear dboncan,

Thank you for reading my article “Why LGBT people must get personal with the Catholic Church.” I read through the comments you made on the Filipino Freethinkers site and picked out 13 that I thought I could address immediately. The rest of your comments were clearly opinions that I know you will hold on to dearly so I will treat them with respect by setting them aside.

Let me be transparent with you. My objective for taking time and responding to you today is, at the most, to turn you into an ally, and at the least, to change some of your perceptions by giving you needed information.

Of course, this is only possible if both of us keep an open mind and remain calm and objective. So if, at any point, you show signs that you have closed your mind about the topic without hopes of turning you into an ally, or make personal remarks similar to your verbal attacks against the other commenters, then I will respectfully withdraw from the discussion.

Here goes.

 

Comment #1:

“Let’s see you are pissed because violence is done to them, well so am I. But the law protects everyone and if there is violence, are you telling me that the police won’t act on it just because the victim is homosexual?”

My response: Yes. There are several reported cases of police not enforcing the law because the victims or complainants were not heterosexual. There are even cases where police take advantage of the situation and harrass the complainant or extort money from them. If you need further information. I will refer you to the right organizations but I cannot post cases here because of confidentiality issues. The bottom line is, to say that “the law protects everyone” is only good on paper but it is not implemented in reality.

 

Comment #2:

Are you telling me that you want legislation that will penalize bullying of homosexuals… but what not weaklings, handicapped, etc… the bullying of homosexuals is because of the perception that they are weak.”

My response: Yes, we want that kind of legislation. But just because we cite examples of discrimination against LGBT people most of the time, it doesn’t mean we do not acknowledge the existence of discrimination against other vulnerable sectors. It only means that we are able to expound on these examples because they are closer to our daily experience. In the same manner, people with disabilities (PWDs) normally cite discrimination against PWDs but it doesn’t mean they don’t recognize the existence of discrimination against others, like, say, indigenous peoples. SB2814 is a bill that will give us, and other vulnerable sectors, that kind of protection.

“Legarda Hails Passage on Third Reading of Anti-Discrimination Bill” –http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2011/1122_legarda1.asp – accessed 2011-12-11

 

Comment #3:

“A comment above says he is pissed because he can’t hold hands in public without being looked at strangely, should we penalize staring behavior as well?”

My response: Please do not put words in my mouth. This is what I said:

“The truth is, the “Marxist mold” and the politics behind the LGBT movement are irrelevant to me when I can’t hold hands with my partner in public. To me, it is hardly political, it is personal.”

In the context of that paragraph, I did not say I was pissed, I did not say anything about being looked at strangely, and I did not demand penalizing staring behavior. All I did was illustrate my point that not everyone in the LGBT movement has a political agenda and not everything about LGBT activism is political. Sometimes, the discrimination we experience is very personal in nature and has little to do with the politics that Acosta was refering to in her presentation.

If you are referring to someone else’s comment, please post it here and I will gladly apologize for assuming I was the subject.

 

Comment #4:

“How can marriage be an absolute basic human right?”

My response: Because that’s what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says and as a member of the United Nations, the Philippine government has the obligation to protect, respect, promote, and fulfill this right as many countries have already done:

“Article 1. – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

“Article 2. – Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

“Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” – http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml – accessed 2011-12-11

 

Comment #5:

“Can minors marry? why not if it is an absolute right? can mentally handicapped people marry? can humans opt to marry their pets?”

My response: These are all false analogies. Please refer to Article 16 Section 2 (above). You cannot get “free and full consent of the intending spouses” if your intending spouse is a minor, a pet, or mentally handicapped.

 

Comment #6:

“Some “rights” are not absolute some are.”

My response: This is simply incorrect. Being absolute is not a characteristic of human rights. Human rights are “Universal, Inalienable, Interdependent, Indivisible, Equal and Non-discriminatory”

“What are human rights?” – http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx – accessed 2011-12-11

 

Comment #7:

“Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office, given a drivers license, cedula, taxed higher, refused enrollment in school or refuses police protection solely by their orientation?”

My response: Yes. Ladlad Party List was disallowed in 2009 to run for public office. They were eventually allowed to run when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor but the case is a clear example of discrimination in politics based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, the Supreme Court blasted the Commission on Elections for using the Bible and Quran in its decision. Here are the first two paragraphs of the Supreme Court’s ruling:

“Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our nonestablishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.”[24] Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”[25]

We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.”

“G.R. No. 190582 – SC Decision on Ladlad vs Comelec” –http://icj.org/dwn/database/Ang%20Ladlad%20LGBT%20Party%20v.%20COMELEC.pdf – accessed 2011-12-11

People who live with partners of the same sex and raise a family are taxed higher because in the eyes of BIR, the tax status of both individuals is “single” and not “married with dependents.” But in reality, their expenses are comparable to expenses of heterosexual couples who enjoy tax benefits of being legally married.

We have documented cases of schools who conduct masculinity tests and reject students who fail this test. This discrimination also affects even heterosexuals who show signs of femininity.

 

Comment #8:

“I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste!”

My response: Morality has always been “relative to a persons preference and taste.” What is moral for a Christian might not be moral for a Muslim and vice versa. Thankfully, our government operates on the rules of law and not the rules of morality. As I’ve already mentioned above, the Supreme Court favored Ladlad Party List and struck down Comelec when it used morality as grounds to bar Ladlad party list from running for the 2010 elections.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden

Can you explain the “repercussions” of same-sex marriage in these countries?

 

Comment #9:

“I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping “rights” which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption.”

My response: There are no rights that are “rightly reserved for heterosexuals” as this is clear violation of Article 2 of the universal declaration of human rights.

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”

 

Comment #10:

“it does not follow that just because someone is productive, they can also contribute to the growth of society in the sense of which i was referring to, i.e. propagate and raise children.”

My response: There are heterosexuals who are unable to propagate and there are heterosexuals who simply want to marry but do not plan on having children. Since they are unable to contribute to the growth of society in the sense that you are referring to, should they be disallowed to marry?

 

Comment #11:

“It falsely imparts to children that there is such a thing as a third sex when there isn’t.”

My Response: You are right. There is no third sex. There is a whole spectrum of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. And that is what children need to learn and understand.

 

Comment #12:

“It is a pretentious union with pretentious results.”

My response: I take offense in this statement. There is nothing pretentious about the celebration of two people being in love and committing their lives to each other. There is nothing pretentious about a person being able to claim inheritance benefits of their spouse, being a beneficiary to health insurance, visitation rights, etc. These results are very real and contribute to the well-being of a person. Please do not trivialize them by calling them pretentious.

 

Comment #13:

“cisgendered” seriously there is a term? the terms cis and trans used to be a chemical prefix and the word gender used to refer to parts of speech.” I am so amused, we get a chemical prefix and combine it with a reference to a part of speech and we have a sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.WOW!”

My response: Again, I take offense in your tone. All kinds of terms come up regularly in order to define human experience. Words like insulares, peninsulares, flips, chinks, jejemons, hipsters, dorks, nerds, squatters, kasambahay, whether with negative or positive connotations, were all coined because of the psycho-social need of certain sectors to create a group they can associate with or have an available term to refer to a sector of society. I highly doubt that international law experts, civil society groups, humanitarians, and diplomats said “WOW!” and were as “amused” as you were when they used these terms in drafting the Yogyakarta Principles and the UN resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Also, there is no “sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.” Both males and females can actually identify as homosexual, transgender, or cisgender. Once you understand the intricacies of these terms, you might be less amused and might find more respect for the people who self-identify with these terms. Here are a couple of sites that might help you understand the terms:

“Transgender, Genderqueer, Cisgender… What Do These Terms Mean?’ –http://kinseyconfidential.org/transgender-genderqueer-cisgender-terms/ – accessed 2011-12-11

“TRANS 101: CISGENDER” – http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/ – accessed 2011-12-11

 

So again, I hope you take the information seriously. If, as early as now, you’ve already made a decision that I will be unsuccessful in either or both of my two objectives, then feel free to ignore this.

Thank you for your time.

Ronald “Ron” de Vera (aka rondevera)

 

| Read more from the same writer here |

Image from andresflava

199 comments

  1. Ron De Vera, I salute you for having an open-mind and righteous intelligence. This article + the arguments you guys made below had enlightened me more about the LGBT rights.

    More powers for you and for other people like you. ^_^

  2. Just noticed that you didn't respond to this:

    Comment #11: “It falsely imparts to children that there is such a thing as a third sex when there isn’t.”

    My Response: You are right. There is no third sex. There is a whole spectrum of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. And that is what children need to learn and understand.

    Now I'm laughing at myself because I should have used this very statement to refute your claim that there is a third sex! 🙂 Can we close this and say we both agree that there is no third sex but there are several "variants" of sexuality (regardless if the claim is some are disordered or not) ?

  3. I would like to say thank you to rondevera for the point-by-point answers to some of dboncan's comments. They are rather enlightening to the rest of us (and some are the distilled summaries of what we've been trying to tell him last time).

    I actually posted a reply to his comment #13 (as it was made in reply to my original comment) moments before I read this article. I believe you have more authority to talk about gender studies as you actually teach it for a living.

    • Thanks! I know it doesn't make much of an impact to the bigger scheme of things but if I could at least get one person like dboncan to shift some of his views about LGBT people, then I think the time I spent on him was well worth it. He has proven to be stubborn on some points, making every attempt to distract from the topic before finally making an admission, (like the Ladlad case) but at least he never called me names and we always maintained a respectful discussion. I have to admit he kept me on my toes so I learned a lot from this, too.

  4. A rundown of dboncan's 13 comments lest we lose track: bit.ly/13comments

    Original comments documented on the second sheet.

    I think we're making good progress, dboncan 🙂

    Thanks!

    Ron

  5. A rundown of dboncan’s 13 comments lest we lose track [ summary posted on bit.ly/13comments ]

    comment #1: CLOSED – dboncan agrees there is a need for legislation against discrimination but notes that redundancy of laws is a minor issue

    comment #2: CLOSED – dboncan says “no disagreement” in response to ron’s statement that LGBT people acknowledge that discrimination against other sectors also exists.

    comment #3: Awaiting response from dboncan regarding LGBT experience not always being political and response regarding SB2814 provisions on forming organizations

    comment #4: CLOSED – dboncan and ron agree to disagree on the issue of morality

    comment #5: Awaiting response from dboncan regarding homosexuality as another variant of males and females, not a third and separate category

    comment #6: One part CLOSED: dboncan said “i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness.” Now awaiting dboncan to admit that the wording “men and women” of article 16 includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Also awaiting response from dboncan regarding ron’s comment that the UDHR may be used in international law.

    comment #7: CLOSED – dboncan acknowledged that “Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined.”

    CLOSED – dboncan acknowledged that “if the LGBT’s are really represented by ladlad then yes.

    CLOSED – dboncan’s statement was “Okay so you showed that the SC did not allow them to use that reason and I said the Comelec failed to prove it. I just assumed that the SC struck that down because the Comelec could not show due cause for that particular ruling. No big deal for me.”

    CLOSED dboncan will agree that taxation is discrimination only if the family code is changed

    comment #8: Awaiting dboncan to prove that same-sex marriage has repercussions on society

    comment #9: Awaiting dboncan to comment on ron’s statement that marriage (article 16) is not reserved for heterosexuals because homosexuals are also men and women

    comment #10: Awaiting dboncan to cite sources that the UDHR and Philippine laws are based on natural laws. Awaiting dboncan to explain why heterosexuals who are unable to or do not intend to propagate are afforded the exception while homosexuals are not

    comment #11: Awaiting response from dboncan to ron’s statement that there is no third sex but instead, a wide range of sexual orientations and gender identities

    comment #12: First part CLOSED, dboncan acknowledged “Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship.” Second part awaiting response from dboncan to cite examples of behavior that is considered devastating in heterosexual relationships as well as the respective organization that says these practices are devastating

    comment #13: Awaiting dboncan to comment on having an open mind and respecting terminology that is unfamiliar to him. Also awaiting dboncan to cite his source in saying that LGBT people say there is a third sex and that LGBT have defended it many times.

    I think we’re making good progress, dboncan 🙂

    Thanks!

    Ron

  6. A rundown of dboncan’s 13 comments lest we lose track [ summary posted on bit.ly/13comments ]

    comment #1: CLOSED – dboncan agrees there is a need for legislation against discrimination but notes that redundancy of laws is a minor issue

    comment #2: CLOSED – dboncan says “no disagreement” in response to ron’s statement that LGBT people acknowledge that discrimination against other sectors also exists.

    comment #3: Awaiting response from dboncan regarding LGBT experience not always being political and response regarding SB2814 provisions on forming organizations

    comment #4: CLOSED – dboncan and ron agree to disagree on the issue of morality

    comment #5: Awaiting response from dboncan regarding homosexuality as another variant of males and females, not a third and separate category

    comment #6: One part CLOSED: dboncan said “i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness.” Now awaiting dboncan to admit that the wording “men and women” of article 16 includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Also awaiting response from dboncan regarding ron’s comment that the UDHR may be used in international law.

    comment #7: First part CLOSED – dboncan acknowledged that “Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined.” Awaiting dboncan to acknowledge that Comelec was not allowed by the SC to use public morals as basis to bar Ladlad. Third part – CLOSED dboncan will agree that taxation is discrimination only if the family code is changed

    comment #8: Awaiting dboncan to prove that same-sex marriage has repercussions on society

    comment #9: Awaiting dboncan to comment on ron’s statement that marriage (article 16) is not reserved for heterosexuals because homosexuals are also men and women

    comment #10: Awaiting dboncan to cite sources that the UDHR and Philippine laws are based on natural laws. Awaiting dboncan to explain why heterosexuals who are unable to or do not intend to propagate are afforded the exception while homosexuals are not

    comment #11: Awaiting response from dboncan to ron’s statement that there is no third sex but instead, a wide range of sexual orientations and gender identities

    comment #12: First part CLOSED, dboncan acknowledged “Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship.” Second part awaiting response from dboncan to cite examples of behavior that is considered devastating in heterosexual relationships as well as the respective organization that says these practices are devastating

    comment #13: Awaiting dboncan to comment on having an open mind and respecting terminology that is unfamiliar to him. Also awaiting dboncan to cite his source in saying that LGBT people say there is a third sex and that LGBT have defended it many times.

    I think we’re making good progress, dboncan 🙂

    Thanks!

    Ron

  7. Sad to say but dick got you where he wanted you to be. This piece is the product of emotionally based judgement. Dick is not a Law of Truth. Educate dick slowly. Dick has been conditioned to stand on truth that has been fed to him. Last, do it personally. Meet dick. You'll be fine.

  8. @ dboncan on RESPONSE 8:

    “Then suddenly you do 180 degrees and say morality is relative. If it is relative, who determines what is objective and inalienable? Moral norms are objective precisely because they are not man-made. It is not relative to taste or culture. Morality has it’s roots on human nature.”

    – My neurons are on a rollercoaster ride on this one. Suppose morality is indeed rooted on human essence, and moral norms are objective because they are not man-made, are you suggesting that morality has divine, supranatural origins? And if morality is not relative to taste or culture, how do you explain the different governing morals among the world’s societies throughout history? To say that moral norms are NOT MAN-MADE, and to refute it later by saying that it has its roots on HUMAN NATURE leaves a reader walking in circles.

    – Your elaborate assertions are impressive, perhaps a formidable argument to counter that of the author himself. But I have been reading this website long enough to understand that the people here are fighting a long and hard battle to dispel the Roman Catholic Church’s monopoly on what moral and what’s not.

  9. “Supposing, some LGBT’s would like to put up an organization in a Catholic institution, what protection do these institutions have from upholding their freedom to practice religion without clashing with the provision in this bill?”

    In other words, can say a Catholic school ban LGBT students from forming a school organization on the basis of the school’s freedom to practice religion? Again the non-establishment of religion in our constitution applies. As in the Ladlad case, the Supreme Court requires that for the ban on gays organizing themselves in catholic schools to be legal, it should have SECULAR reasons and should have SECULAR effects. Meaning that you cannot ban something just because it is against your religion — you have to cite other reasons which are NOT based on religion to justify the ban. That’s the meaning of non-establishment of religion in our Constitution.

    • Even if approving it means accepting/condoning a behavior that is against the teachings of the religion of which the particular school is built on? So if they do organize themselves in a CAtholic institition and so much as promote the gay lifestyle, which is against Catholic teaching, the school may boot them out?

    • You told me that we could have an exchange that is not muddled. As it stands, I didn't know that you intended to make this personal which is apparent in the way you entitled this fora. AGAIN, I do not appreciate making this into a personal attack against my name as I have maintained decency and ethical behavior in all my comments. So I would like you to remove references to my person such as my nickname which is only reserved for friends and family. No acquaintance, cordial or otherwise calls me that way. If you intended to insult me then so be it but it speaks highly of the kind of person you are.

      • Fair enough. I have already asked the editors to remove references to your name. My sincere apologies if this offended you but please accept my assurance that I had no intentions of making a personal attack. I appreciate the decency and ethical behavior. Thanks

  10. Nodody should ever forget that a few years ago, Comelec deny partylist representation for the Ang Ladlad group. The reason for the decision?
    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/12/09/com

    //In a ruling dated November 11, the Comelec said that although the party presented proper documents and evidence for their accreditation, their petition is "dismissable on moral grounds."

    Page 5 of the ruling states that Ang Ladlad's definition of the LGBT sector as a marginalized sector who are disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation "makes it crystal clear that the petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."

    The document quotes passages from both the Bible and the Koran (taken from internet site http://www.bible.org) that describe homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive."//

    it's bleeding obvious that religiously motivated discrimination is alive and well in Gov't, and as a secular nation.

  11. Response 8 part 2: Yes:
    Their society is fast becoming sterile. First contraception, then abortion then euthanasia then homosexual marriage. No children, no future, dying society. They are on a population implosion. Let’s see in another hundred years.

    Response 9: "Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
    I think this is pretty clear as to what constitutes the right to marry.
    Now, we are not obliged to follow this declaration if it clashes with our own laws it is as simple as that.

    Response 10: The marital act is precisely made fruitful because it is an act between a man and a woman. That is why in laws have always taken this to mean between a man and a woman because of the natural laws of things from where these are based. Heterosexuals who marry and cannot or opt not to have children do so by choice or by defect. But if you notice, these are more the exception than the rule.

    Response 11: Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship however, I find it pretentious to say that they can function like a regular heterosexual family unit. There is a study looking at “successful” homosexual relationships and it was a bit shocking to find out that what they considered to be successful involved some practices that would be considered devastating in heterosexual relationships.

    Response 12: I am still genuinely amused If you are offended by that so be it. But it’s the first time I have ever heard of such a term.

    Response 12 part 2: But isn’t that what they say all the time that their’s is the third sex? Male, female and homosexual. I have heard it defended many times. It has become so muddled that even they don’t know what to call themselves anymore. For heavens sake, when I was growing up there were homosexuals and straights. Now they have transgenders, cross-dressers, etc… It seems that the more variations they can add within their behavior spectrum, the more categories are added too.

    • Response 8 part 2: "Yes: Their society is fast becoming sterile. First contraception, then abortion then euthanasia then homosexual marriage. No children, no future, dying society. They are on a population implosion. Let’s see in another hundred years."

      My Response: This is anecdotal information. Please cite quantifiable data that proves "No children, no future, dying society. They are on a population implosion."

    • Response 9: "Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." I think this is pretty clear as to what constitutes the right to marry. Now, we are not obliged to follow this declaration if it clashes with our own laws it is as simple as that."

      My Response: "we are not obliged to follow this declaration if it clashes with our own laws it is as simple as that."

      Exactly! And that is why we are educating others and opening minds of legislators and society-at-large so that in the near future, the declaration will no longer clash with our own laws.

      • And by the way, there is nothing in Article 16 that says marriage is reserved for heterosexuals. It says "men and women." This means homosexuals (some of whom are men and some of whom are women) must also be allowed to marry.

        • You never replied to this but please let me know if you agree that marriage and adoption are not reserved for heterosexuals if it is in the context of the UDHR coupled with the Yogyakarta Principles? (granted that domestic law says otherwise).

          • Here is the text from Principle 24. The Right to Found a Family:

            "Everyone has the right to found a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Families exist in diverse forms. No family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members.

            States shall:

            a) Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to ADOPTION or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; [emphasis on ADOPTION added]

            Again, granted that domestic law is currently contrary to international law.

    • Response 10: “The marital act is precisely made fruitful because it is an act between a man and a woman. That is why in laws have always taken this to mean between a man and a woman because of the natural laws of things from where these are based. Heterosexuals who marry and cannot or opt not to have children do so by choice or by defect. But if you notice, these are more the exception than the rule."

      Again, you use "natural laws." Please cite your source that the UDHR and Philippine Laws are based on “natural laws.”

      You: "Heterosexuals who marry and cannot or opt not to have children do so by choice or by defect. But if you notice, these are more the exception than the rule."

      My Response: Why are we affording heterosexuals the exception but not homosexuals? That, right there, is another form of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    • Response 11: “Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship"

      – closed – Thank you

      You: "however, I find it pretentious to say that they can function like a regular heterosexual family unit. There is a study looking at “successful” homosexual relationships and it was a bit shocking to find out that what they considered to be successful involved some practices that would be considered devastating in heterosexual relationships."

      My Response: Please cite which practices would be considered "devastating" in heterosexual relationships? And which organization or evaluating body considers them devastating?

    • Response 12: “I am still genuinely amused If you are offended by that so be it. But it’s the first time I have ever heard of such a term."

      My Response: There is always a first time, even I am surprised at times. But I have the respect not to be amused and not devalue the experience of my fellow humans. The good news is, now you know these terms exist. Hopefully, you will find it in you to have an open mind when you come across new terms, even if they are terms not relating to LGBT people.

    • Response 12 part 2: “But isn’t that what they say all the time that their’s is the third sex? Male, female and homosexual. I have heard it defended many times. It has become so muddled that even they don’t know what to call themselves anymore."

      Who said so? Cite your source. In any case, I am telling you now that being a homosexual is not a third category separate from being male and female. You can be a male homosexual, you can also be a female homosexual. It gets muddled, I agree. But again, if you want us to listen to you, the least you can do is call us by the right terms. It doesn't hurt to do so because the more you understand our terms, the more you will understand what we are going through. I conduct LGBT 101 regularly. I'm sure it would do wonders if you finally understand how differently we use "homosexuality" from how you've been using it.

      • I will also close this item because you've already acknowledged that there is no third sex:

        (1) "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that"

        (2) "i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness."

        • //"i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness." //

          This begs the question: What is dboncan's "maleness" (or is it manliness) and what is femaleness? I personally like cooking, housework, good poetry, and I am unabashed fan of shows like My Little Pony. Does that make people like me any less of a "man" according to dboncan's standards?

    • You: "For heavens sake, when I was growing up there were homosexuals and straights. Now they have transgenders, cross-dressers, etc… It seems that the more variations they can add within their behavior spectrum, the more categories are added too."

      My Response: I know. I understand and I agree. A lot of these terms were not in use just a decade ago. But I will go back to my request for you to be respectful and to keep an open mind when you come across new words because some people hold these sacred.

      Thanks for responding! By replying to my post, can I assume that you have acknowledged that there is hope to achieving either one of my objectives? In fact, we have already closed some items. Would you say that it is a sign that you have already changed some of your views on homosexuality? Or in the future, use LGBT. You will soon find that we respond better to that term rather than the plain and outdated “homosexuality.”

      Thanks!

    • //Their society is fast becoming sterile. First contraception, then abortion then euthanasia then homosexual marriage. No children, no future, dying society. They are on a population implosion. Let’s see in another hundred years.
      //

      1. Have you even read the maternal mortality rates of women prior to the introduction of modern RH programs worldwide?

      2. How exactly does protecting gay rights prevent straight couples from having more kids. And on that note, the world passed the 7 billion mark on last count. Our own population is over 94 million.

      //Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." //

      Read it thrice over, dboncan. It says men and women have the right to marry, but it doesn't necessarily say they have to marry each other.

      //Response 10: That is why in laws have always taken this to mean between a man and a woman because of the natural laws of things from where these are based. Heterosexuals who marry and cannot or opt not to have children do so by choice or by defect. But if you notice, these are more the exception than the rule.//

      But for all intents and purposes, heterosexual couples can and will marry even if they know they can't have kids. That's the bottom line. And in these instances, they can opt to adopt or use IVFs – the same methods available to gay couples.

      //Response 11: Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship however, I find it pretentious to say that they can function like a regular heterosexual family unit. There is a study looking at “successful” homosexual relationships and it was a bit shocking to find out that what they considered to be successful involved some practices that would be considered devastating in heterosexual relationships.//

      We've gone through this before, dboncan: Studies have already shown that gay and lesbian families are not different in their ability to raise a child properly.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6670-lesbiahttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-childhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/1008

      //Response 12: I am still genuinely amused If you are offended by that so be it. But it’s the first time I have ever heard of such a term. //

      And we are amused at your lack of vocabulary, given your age and self-assurance.

      //For heavens sake, when I was growing up there were homosexuals and straights. Now they have transgenders, cross-dressers, etc… It seems that the more variations they can add within their behavior spectrum, the more categories are added too. //

      Actually, all that reflects is how old and senile you've gotten.

  12. Response7: I think the Comelec decision goes beyond mere sex bias. It cites what that organization stands for as being morally unacceptable and to accredit them is tantamount to accepting something immoral. Now lets be clear, I didn’t say that the Comelec did. Whether or not this is legal basis enough to deny them is up to the courts. But to say it’s purely gender bias is oversimplifying the position. One only has to watch and see what happens in gay pride marches to realize that there is certain behavior demonstrated that I would be embarrassed to have my children see. it’s rather telling. I am not however saying that just because homosexuals behave that way, they can be discriminated on. I don;t understand why people in that forum seem to be under the impression that just because I say that homosexuality is disordered that I want to bully, that is pretty immature.
    Regarding marriage, the family code states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How is the BIR discriminatory in this, it is only following the law? Homosexual unions do not constitute marriage.

    Response 8: But in defining life, liberty and happiness, you believe that these are all objective and absolute. These inalienable rights are also called natural rights or moral rights. A person’s moral right to life, liberty and happiness. Then suddenly you do 180 degrees and say morality is relative. If it is relative, who determines what is objective and inalienable? Moral norms are objective precisely because they are not man-made. It is not relative to taste or culture. Morality has it’s roots on human nature. Killing, lying, stealing, adultery, fornication are all objective morally evil norms but the cultural applications differ. All of these are morally bad in whatever culture you are or whatever religion you are. if morality were only a product of ones mind, then why should I trust you too when you moralize to me about discrimination? The reason why I believe that homosexuals should not be bullied or denied employment or denied enrollment is because of the objective moral standard that everyone has a right to be free from violence or harassment. Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste. THe supreme court saw the right of freedom of expression to be above what the Comelec decided on. Yet Homosexual behavior (acts, not orientation) like adulterous behavior are still objectively morally wrong.

    • Response7: “I think the Comelec decision goes beyond mere sex bias.It cites what that organization stands for as being morally unacceptable and to accredit them is tantamount to accepting something immoral."

      My Response: You contradicted yourself in your statement:

      YOUR CONCLUSION: "I think the Comelec decision goes beyond mere sex bias."
      YOUR PREMISE 1: "It cites what that organization stands for as being morally unacceptable"
      YOUR PREMISE 2: "and to accredit them is tantamount to accepting something immoral."

      This is why it is contradictory:
      PREMISE 1: Comelec cites what Ladlad stands for:

      "Petitioner defines the Filipino Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community, thus: … a MARGINALIZED AND UNDER-REPRESENTED SECTOR THAT IS PARTICULARLY DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY" [emphasis added] [p3, par 6 – http://icj.org/dwn/database/Ang%20Ladlad%20LGBT%2

      Therefore, Comelec finds the "MARGINALIZED AND UNDER-REPRESENTED SECTOR THAT IS PARTICULARLY DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY" as being morally unacceptable

      PREMISE 2: "and to accredit" LADLAD is tantamount to accepting" the MARGINALIZED AND UNDER-REPRESENTED SECTOR THAT IS PARTICULARLY DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY" as immoral.

      And this is contradictory to your own conclusion that "I think the Comelec decision goes beyond mere sex bias" because the Comelec decision is precisely because of "sex bias" as lifted from the ruling.

      • You: "Regarding marriage, the family code states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How is the BIR discriminatory in this, it is only following the law? Homosexual unions do not constitute marriage."

        My Response: You are right, homosexual unions in the Philippines do not constitute marriage. The fact that is does not is in itself discriminatory. I never said it was BIR that discriminates against same- sex couples. I am saying that there is discrimination in that instance because there no reason for same-sex couples not to enjoy the tax benefits of married couples when the only difference is their sexual orientation. If they were given the same marital status as heterosexual couples, only then will they be taxed equally and only then would discrimination be eliminated in that particular example.

      • I do not contradict myself because what a person is (homosexual) is different from what a person does (something immoral). You seem to make the two as one, I don't.Based on my understanding of their decision, they rejected the petitioners on the basis of the acts they do not who they are. But again, I am not defending their ruling, in fact I too find that unfair for the Ladlad. The thing is, it seems that many homosexuals think that how they act is who they are. I don't really want to discuss this issue about the Comelec because it is political.

        • Let me redirect you back to your original comment: “Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office"

          Your question implied that your perception was that LGBT people are not sidelined politically and I cited the case of Ladlad to show that your perception was wrong. Now by saying, in your own words "in fact I too find that unfair for the Ladlad" do you now admit that your original perception was wrong and now acknowledge that LGBT people are sidelined politically?

          • I think many sectors of society are under-represented. I also think the party-list system is defective and should be removed. It is a costly and redundant and makes our representatives lazy because instead of working for all their constituents, regardless of ethnicity, religion and sex, they relegate the work to the respective party list. The overlap is tremendous. Was the LGBT sidelined politically, sure. Do they need representation as a party list, I have strong reservations. Given the passage of this anti-discriminatory bill, they have even less purpose to be accredited.I know that you have data to show that there are instances here and there of rights of homosexual persons being ignored or suppressed but let me ask you this, by and large, are homosexuals able to function in society like the average Juan in terms of getting licenses, certificates, enrolled, work they are qualified for, police protection? This must be answered without bias because anyone can present evidence however marginalization should not be mere evidence but overwhelming evidence that shows the degree to which they are marginalized. The few homosexual friends I know don't seem to have any problems functioning productively in society.

          • Don't introduce new arguments and turn this into a debate on your opinion about the party list system. Just answer this question directly:

            Do you now admit that your original perception was wrong and now acknowledge that LGBT people are sidelined politically?

            Or should I equate your statement "Was the LGBT sidelined politically, sure" as your admission?

          • Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined. Mu question is does the LGBT represent who they claim to represent or are these people only noisy? Second is their agenda now not covered by the anti-discriminatory act?

          • "Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined." – This admission is all I need to close this item. Thank you.

            As for the following:

            "Mu question is does the LGBT represent who they claim to represent or are these people only noisy?" – Just spend a day with them and see how many cases of discrimination they need to handle and how many LGBT people they help. You would be amazed if at the end of the day, they would still have enough energy to be "only noisy."

            "Second is their agenda now not covered by the anti-discriminatory act?" – (1) The CBCP is attempting to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity from the bill before it gets passed into law so the answer is "no." (2) Even if it is passed into law, Ladlad will still run for congress to ensure that other laws are created and discriminatory laws are repealed.

            But again, you just introduced new information so I will consider this item closed. Any response to the above two questions will constitute a new discussion. Thank you.

    • You: "Now lets be clear, I didn’t say that the Comelec did."

      My Response: If it is not based on facts, then it is merely opinion. Aside from being self-contradicting, you can't use it because I cannot refute an opinion

    • You: "One only has to watch and see what happens in gay pride marches to realize that there is certain behavior demonstrated that I would be embarrassed to have my children see."

      My Response: Exactly what kind of "behavior" are you embarrassed to have your children see? Men kissing other men? Women wearing men's clothing?

      I will still maintain that it "it’s purely gender bias" and I am not "oversimplifying the position." The arguments of Comelec, as well as your example, are linked to the perception that that homosexuality is immoral.

      • Well how about dressing up usually parodying the Church or having phallic symbols or public displays of affection. In other words it ain't anything like any protest marches we see. The difference between your point of view and mine is that there are certain norms of decent behavior that many people consider to be acceptable in public.

        • I would say that "decent behavior" is a social construct and therefore subjective but let's agree to disagree because that will again, distract us from your original comment.

          I also want to note that you did not respond to the item on double standards as far as taxation is concerned.

          • Mr. de vera, seriously. Have you ever attended any of the gay pride parades? I have in the U.S! You have people walking with their butts exposed through their jeans. You have people walking while cupping each others butts. They wear phallic symbols on their headgear. They walk around parodying those who disagree with their views on sexual behavior by dressing up like them, especially priests and nuns. What are the limits of decent behavior to you? As long as they don't show blood and gore? As long as they don't expose their private parts? Perhaps “decent behavior” is a social construct, maybe, but precisely it was done not to gag freedom of expression but to prevent the abuse of it.I think that it is highly biased of you to say that these kinds of display are acceptable to the general public, seriously?I cannot in my mind also understand why they call it gay pride when all they show is gay sexual pride. It seems that they are proud, not of who they are, but more of what they do. I would even be more sympathetic to their cause if they marched as professionals in their different walks of life while tackling the real issues of marginalization. Imagine an alcoholics pride march where the marchers are carrying bottles of liquor, why would I sympathize with those, it's absurd isn't it? When one says they are proud of being homosexual, I would like to think that they are proud of who they are not just what they do sexually. The problem with the LGBT movement is that they want people to accept their behavior and not their person. What they are doing is identifying their sexual behavior with who they are which actually puts them in a bad light. No one wants to support someone who identifies himself solely on the basis of his sexual behavior.

          • I knew you would respond this way so I will go back to what I said to get us back on track:

            "I would say that "decent behavior" is a social construct and therefore subjective but let's agree to disagree because that will again, distract us from your original comment."

            [emphasis on agree to disagree]

            I also want to note that you did not respond to the item on double standards as far as taxation is concerned."

          • You: “Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office, given a drivers license, cedula, taxed higher" [emphasis on "taxed higher"]

            Me: "People who live with partners of the same sex and raise a family are taxed higher because in the eyes of BIR, the tax status of both individuals is “single” and not “married with dependents.” But in reality, their expenses are comparable to expenses of heterosexual couples who enjoy tax benefits of being legally married."

            You: Regarding marriage, the family code states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How is the BIR discriminatory in this, it is only following the law? Homosexual unions do not constitute marriage.

            Me: You are right, homosexual unions in the Philippines do not constitute marriage. The fact that is does not is in itself discriminatory. I never said it was BIR that discriminates against same- sex couples. I am saying that there is discrimination in that instance because there is no reason for same-sex couples not to enjoy the tax benefits of married couples when the only difference is their sexual orientation. If they were given the same marital status as heterosexual couples, only then will they be taxed equally and only then would discrimination be eliminated in that particular example.

          • “You are right, homosexual unions in the Philippines do not constitute marriage. The fact that is does not is in itself discriminatory. I never said it was BIR that discriminates against same- sex couples. I am saying that there is discrimination in that instance because there is no reason for same-sex couples not to enjoy the tax benefits of married couples when the only difference is their sexual orientation. If they were given the same marital status as heterosexual couples, only then will they be taxed equally and only then would discrimination be eliminated in that particular example. “how is something that one cannot rightfully claim to be entitled to, be discriminatory? A woman who wants to become a Catholic priest cannot cry discrimination because they are not entitled to that “right” in the first place. If the family code changes then you are right it is discriminatory. Co-habiting heterosexuals pay taxes individually so why shouldn't co-habiting homosexuals?

          • "If the family code changes then you are right it is discriminatory."

            Okay, I will give this to you because this is exactly what we are fighting to change anyway. Once we are able to change the family code, then I think the two of us would be in agreement. The important thing is, I was able to help you change your mind about LGBT people being sidelined politically.

    • Response 8: "These inalienable rights are also called natural rights or moral rights"

      My Response: Again, please support this statement. Do not equate the UDHR with natural or moral rights because they are not one and the same.

      You: "Then suddenly you do 180 degrees and say morality is relative. If it is relative, who determines what is objective and inalienable? Moral norms are objective precisely because they are not man-made. It is not relative to taste or culture. Morality has it’s roots on human nature. Killing, lying, stealing, adultery, fornication are all objective morally evil norms but the cultural applications differ. All of these are morally bad in whatever culture you are or whatever religion you are. if morality were only a product of ones mind, then why should I trust you too when you moralize to me about discrimination? The reason why I believe that homosexuals should not be bullied or denied employment or denied enrollment is because of the objective moral standard that everyone has a right to be free from violence or harassment."

      My Response: I will maintain my stand that morality is relative. To me, homosexual behavior is moral, to you it is immoral. The fact that we have to discuss the matter at this very moment is enough proof of morality being relative.

      • See this is where your self-contradiction lies: You say morality is relative yet you are absolutizing oppression of homosexuals or the acceptance of their actions. If morality is a matter of taste or preference who are you to tell people to stop bullying them? If it just changes with taste and fads then let society change it as it goes along. You should stop condemning discrimination because that is just a matter of someone else's taste too. If everything is relative then everything is permissible and nothing is condemnable. All you should only be able to say is "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks" I don't like you stroke but heck that's only me. You're self contradiction lies in that when it suits you, you are non-relative about your views which to me is simply hypocrisy. It is only when morality is objectively true that people can say oppression and bullying are always wrong no matter who the victims are, relativistic moralists cannot say that without falling into a self-contradiction.

        • Again, this discussion has deviated from the original intent. We can't argue over interpretations of morality so let's go back to your original comment:

          “I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste!”

          You still have not been able to cite quantifiable data to prove the "repercussions" you are referring to other than "Their society is fast becoming sterile. First contraception, then abortion then euthanasia then homosexual marriage. No children, no future, dying society. They are on a population implosion. Let’s see in another hundred years."

          • In countries where contraception is rampant, there is a demographic implosion and graying going on. Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, S. Korea, former eastern bloc countries etc… the data is online look at the Population Research Institute

          • Why are you talking about contraception? We are talking about the repercussions of same-sex marriage. Let me go back to my question:

            "Same-sex marriage is already legal in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden
            Can you explain the “repercussions” of same-sex marriage in these countries?"

            Please show proof that the demographic implosion is a result of the "repercussions" of same-sex marriage and not contraception.

          • I meant to show the cumulative effects of a society that embraces behaviors that sterilizes itself. In a sense a homosexual union is like a contracepted heterosexual marriage, they both end up sterile. Do we have any data on homosexual unions? No because the percentage of these unions are not significant enough to impact the society in the way contraception does. But we can extrapolate the data based on percentages and come up with a scenario.

          • "…the percentage of these unions are not significant enough to impact the society in the way contraception does."

            So you admit that with contraception out of the discussion, same-sex marriage per se has no significant impact on society?

          • I have no simple yes or no answer since the topic is complicated.Three points:1. Not yet since it's a fairly young situation to have any significant sized sample to study for the purpose of demographics. That's how contraception started out and it took about 20-30 years to see its effects, i figure it would take longer for this.2. I don't think as a single data set, it will have significant impact in the short term but as part of the whole it will contribute a small amount3. It's indirect effects will be even greater as it reinforces the contraceptive mentality by creating in society an alternative, albeit sterile, family unit.

          • I'm not sure I'm convinced here. Our world population recently reached 7 billion, what impact did contraception make to this population explosion?

            Also, according to Acosta, homosexuals comprise less than 3% of the population. (http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/17709)

            Is that figure enough to make the repercussions you are referring to?

          • “I'm not sure I'm convinced here. Our world population recently reached 7 billion, what impact did contraception make to this population explosion?”You don't measure world population based on total numbers because growth is not static. The way it is measured is by looking at how fast it has been growing. The data shows that the growth has slowed tremendously. In other words the mathematical progression has slowed to a point that in the next 50-75 years, population growth will be negative.Aside from this, the numbers of aging >60 people is fast outgrowing the 18-40 in the countries I mentioned. The repercussions are tremendous that is why I said you should look at the PRI website, it has a clear way of presenting this data in a way I can't”Also, according to Acosta, homosexuals comprise less than 3% of the population. <a href="http://(http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/17709)"(http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/17709)“<br />I agree that is why i said the impact will not be great as a single data set. But add this to the X% contracepting + X% aborting + X% not getting married well you know what i mean. but again this isn't the only consideration. You also have the multiplier effect to society in terms of cultural influence.”Is that figure enough to make the repercussions you are referring to?”All I am saying is that if we extrapolate the data in terms of cumulative factors then yes we already have those repercussions worldwide.

          • I don't know what PRI is but according to the UN, the world population will pass 10 billion by 2100 [ http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3825… ]

            Also, among the 3%, not all of them will get married and not all of them live in countries where same-sex marriage is legal so that further lowers your percentage of same-sex couples.

            Perhaps you don't have enough data to support your statement?

          • I suggest you get a better grasp of what de-population really means before you jump to conclusionsPRI population research institute

          • So help me get a better grasp of it the way I've been giving you information on the UDHR, the Ladlad case, Yogyakarta Principles, etc. If you notice, most of the links and data have come from my side. I'm not treating this as a debate, I'm thinking of this as a way for us to educate each other so give me more information to chew on.

          • The PRI is a good resource re population. I don't download stuff I just read them online. you can start with that.

          • Unfortunately, the burden of proof is with you because you were the one who introduced the argument that same-sex marriage has repercussions on society. So at this point, I will maintain my stand that same-sex marriage has no repercussions to society. I'll keep this item open for discussion purposes.

          • No/immature data = no effect? But that is not how stats work. We first have to accumulate data that examine this specific set. I predict that we will have this in the next few years. Someone will do it. If we are honest about things we know that any societal unit will have an impact in society whether nominal or large. If we look at the data of different societal units like abortion, contraception, marriage and divorce have impacted society, we can extrapolate data from homosexual unions based on percentages. It may not be the most accurate but it is done all the time. We do it with population growth and fertility rates right?You guys do it with human rights violations and it's impact on society right? To wave it off and simply sat “no repercussions” means that you actually have the data already. WE should say WE DON'T KNOW YET.

          • You are right. In the absence of data, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. So if the question is "What are the repercussions of same sex marriage?" The answer is "WE DON'T KNOW YET" Correct?

          • So when I said:

            "Same-sex marriage is already legal in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Can you explain the “repercussions” of same-sex marriage in these countries?"

            Your answer should have been "WE DON'T KNOW YET" Correct?

          • Okay, follow up question; do we already have data to prove that same-sex marriage has made morality "relative to a persons preference and taste" in countries where it is legal, or is the answer also "WE DON'T KNOW YET" ?

          • It's the other way around, the result of relativism in morality is the notion that same-sex marriage is good or acceptable. That there are no moral absolutes and that we can do with our natures as we please even if it is against our nature.

          • So you're saying that:

            "the result of relativism in morality is the notion that same-sex marriage is good or acceptable"

            id est: moral relativism causes same-sex marriage

            This is in direct contradiction to your original statement:

            “I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste!”

            id est: same-sex marriage causes moral relativism

            Which is which?

          • “I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste!”nope no contradiction. in this sentence (poorly constructed I admit as i was in a hurry) I meant to say that the acceptance of same-sex marriage reinforces moral relativism in the society by showing that morality is based merely on ones preference and taste.The first is as is.

          • Your shift from "introduce" to "reinforce" is too drastic that it effectively nullifies this whole discussion. Nevertheless, let me get us back on track.

            All I want is to understand why you are opposed to same-sex marriage. Without data, we can't jump to conclusions. So what data is there to support your opposition?

            From a population standpoint, you already answered "WE DON'T KNOW YET"

            From a moral standpoint, you said that "acceptance of same-sex marriage reinforces moral relativism in the society" so cite data that proves same-sex marriage has reinforced moral relativism in the aforementioned countries ever since they legalized same-sex marriage. Without conclusive data, we will keep coming back to "WE DON'T KNOW YET" Without data, your opposition is not factual, it is opinion. In which case, I wouldn't even attempt a discussion as I will just have to respect your opinion.

          • I don't oppose something merely because of data. That is for sociologists to figure out. I oppose something because it is an assault to truth. Should we not oppose something that is false especially if it is assaulting the truth of our nature? Let me be clear: I oppose homosexual acts because they are wrong. Homosexual orientation is not immoral, it is disordered. My opposition to same-sex marriage is it's assault on the nature of marriage, it's final cause. I think that all we have to do is look at our family code to realize that we Filipinos understand this. You should also take a look at the UN Declaration which you have been posting and which you conceded seems to also say what I have been saying. It is so strong a document using “conscience” and omitting “orientation” in it's wording in the same article.

          • "I don't oppose something merely because of data." – but you already said that without data, the answer is "WE DON'T KNOW YET" So your opposition is merely your opinion and not based on facts. Correct?

          • Well if you don't consider moral norms to be grasped as a factual reality separate from material facts, I suppose the answer would be Yes. But curiously there are several articles on line that have commented on the effects (cost and societal repercussions) of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: <a href="http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdfhttp://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effec… />Let me know what you think of their analysis and how it can applied per country.

          • 1. "Well if you don't consider moral norms to be grasped as a factual reality separate from material facts, I suppose the answer would be Yes."
            -closed- Thank you!

            But at the risk of belaboring this point, you said "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste." Same-sex marriage is legal in 10 countries and other countries recognize civil unions and its equivalents. So in all these countries, same-sex marriage is part of their natural moral standards and is not a matter of taste. Correct?

            2. "But curiously there are several articles on line that have commented on the effects (cost and societal repercussions) of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effec… Let me know what you think of their analysis and how it can applied per country."

            I don't consider it an analysis. It is a biased narrative of the writers observations. It presents a lot of REACTION to the new law but presents no measurable IMPACT. Also, it only represents Massachussetts (which is not even a country). What about the 10 countries where same-sex marriage is legal?

          • “But at the risk of belaboring this point, you said “Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste.” Same-sex marriage is legal in 10 countries and other countries recognize civil unions and its equivalents. So in all these countries, same-sex marriage is part of their natural moral standards and is not a matter of taste. Correct?”The laws on marriage are based on natural moral law that is why in all of history down to the last maybe 20 years, all countries/states and even most individuals recognized this. If this law is based on the natural moral law, then it should never change. I think you are precisely arguing my point that society has become more relative and has therefor abandoned the traditional understanding of the nature of marriage, the nature of what is to be male and the nature of what it is to be female. It abandoned this not necessarily from any sort of malice or rebellion but from a misdirected stand for compassion.I have a question: Why is it that homosexuals seem to associate themselves so much with what they do rather than who they are?

          • It's difficult to read these comments with the ever decreasing column size so I'm reposting this as a new comment

    • You: "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste. THe supreme court saw the right of freedom of expression to be above what the Comelec decided on. Yet Homosexual behavior (acts, not orientation) like adulterous behavior are still objectively morally wrong."

      My Response: Sorry but this argument is not acceptable because it constitutes three forms of fallacies:

      1. Fallacy of presupposition: "Homosexual behavior (acts, not orientation) like adulterous behavior are still objectively morally wrong."

      You used "objectively" to quantify "morally" yet you have not sufficiently established that morality is objective.

      2. False analogy: "Homosexual behavior (acts, not orientation) like adulterous behavior are still objectively morally wrong."

      Homosexual behavior cannot and must not be compared to adulterous behavior. There are several homosexual relationships that are monogamous. Granted there are cases of homosexual and heterosexual relationships that are adulterous but a homosexual relationship in itself is not inherently adulterous, therefore, the two cannot be compared.

      -continued-

      • No fallacy there but of course I wouldn't expect a moral relativist to understand that. The point of the comparison is not to equate adulterous acts and homosexual acts, the point was to say that they are both considered to be deviant behaviours because they go against the very nature of the thing they represent. Marriage and Sex.

        • //No fallacy there but of course I wouldn't expect a moral relativist to understand that.//

          And I wouldn't expect a dishonest bigot like you to understand what is wrong with gay discrimination.

          Bullshit – //"Homosexual behavior (acts, not orientation) like adulterous behavior are still objectively morally wrong.//

          Out of all the likely comparisons you could have done, you chose adultery. You're intentionall trying to compare it to adultery.

          • Of course I compare it to adultery. because homosexual ACTS (not orientation) is like adulterous acts and fornication, we see it as immoral. Homosexual orientation is NOT immoral it is a disordered orientation.

          • //Of course I compare it to adultery. because homosexual ACTS (not orientation) is like adulterous acts and fornication, we see it as immoral. //

            You have yet to explain how homosexuality is in any way similar to adultery and fucking.

            //Homosexual orientation is NOT immoral it is a disordered orientation. //

            Argumentum ad nauseum, dboncan-chan? No matter how many times you'll click your little red heels, the fact will not change that homosexuality is not considered a disorder (ask the APA, or is their flamingly gay agenda influence too strong for your sensibilities?).

            What is immoral and disordered, however, is bigotry and homophobia.

          • You're a bright boy you can figure it out. Just use that seven pound piece of fat in between your ears and think. If however you know that your mind is only a product of that piece of fat, then perhaps you won't get any answers.

          • //You're a bright boy you can figure it out. Just use that seven pound piece of fat in between your ears and think. If however you know that your mind is only a product of that piece of fat, then perhaps you won't get any answers. //

            I'll take it your irrelevant rambling is your way of saying you have nothing to say to counter my points, fuckwit?

          • Let's review your statements:

            You said this earlier…

            "The point of the comparison is not to equate adulterous acts and homosexual acts,"

            And then said this:

            "Of course I compare it to adultery. because homosexual ACTS (not orientation) is like adulterous acts and fornication, we see it as immoral."

            So which is it really? Are you comparing or not comparing it? Are you off your meds again? Will the dominant personality possessing dboncan please speak up.

    • -continuation-

      3. Cherry picking: "THe supreme court saw the right of freedom of expression to be above what the Comelec decided on."

      The Supreme Court's decision was not only about "right of freedom of expression." Here are all the reasons of the SC as lifted from the headings in OUR RULING section:

      "Compliance with the Requirements of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941"
      "Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang Ladlad’s Petition for Registration"
      "Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang Ladlad’s Petition for Registration"
      "Equal Protection"
      "Freedom of Expression and Association"
      "Non-Discrimination and International Law"

      You see, it includes "public morals" as an invalid reason used by the Comelec. Which means your statement "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards" is inaccurate.

      • Well the Comelec failed to prove that the petitioners were fostering immoral behavior. ( I am not saying that they do) That's all it means

        • To say "That's all it means" is inaccurate. The Comelec was able to prove that Ladlad was fostering immoral behavior if you base it on the Bible and Quran. What this really means is the Supreme Court did not allow Comelec to use public morals to bar Ladlad. What this also means is that, again, you must retract your original comment of "“Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office"

          • perhaps but I read through what you pasted and that is how I interpreted it. If the case was that they used the bible to justify rejecting them, that was kind of stupid but it does make the point that because homosexuals project that who they are is what they do, people see them as that.

          • Please don't deviate from the original intent of the discussion. I just need to know if you've changed your mind about your comments below:

            Your Comment: "Well the Comelec failed to prove that the petitioners were fostering immoral behavior. ( I am not saying that they do) That's all it means"

            My Response: "What this really means is the Supreme Court did not allow Comelec to use public morals to bar Ladlad."

            Your Comment: "Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office"

            My comment: Yes (citing Ladlad case)

          • I didn't change my mind on my views that homosexuals in general are marginalized politically. What I see is an organization that claims to represent homosexuals and others being sidelined.I have friends who are homosexuals who don't want anything to do with Ladlad and find them to demean what a homosexual person is by reducing them to what they do. Ironically, the gays I know who have joined pride marches in the U.S. see the marches as a sort of carnival and not one of militant activism for rights, maybe it's just them.

          • Don't turn this into a discussion about Ladlad and what people think about it. I'm not saying you changed your " views that homosexuals in general are marginalized politically"

            Let's go back to your original comment: "Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office"

            To which I cited the Ladlad case. It is concrete proof that counters your original statement. You even said "I am not defending their ruling, in fact I too find that unfair for the Ladlad." Why won't you just admit that regardless of the reputation of the party list, now you know that LGBT people have actually been sidelined politically?

            Also, another comment was: "Well the Comelec failed to prove that the petitioners were fostering immoral behavior. ( I am not saying that they do) That's all it means"

            I already lifted text from the ruling to prove that this is inaccurate. The ruling also states that the supreme court did not allow Comelec to use public morals as grounds to bar ladlad. Why would you not acknowledge that "public morals" was not allowed by the SC to be used against Ladlad when the text concretely shows this?

          • Oh, actually, let me take that back, you DID admit that LGBT people are sidelined politically. You said in an earlier statement:

            "Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined."

            So never mind that first part. At this point, just acknowledge that the SC disallowed the Comelec to use "public morals" to bar Ladlad. Thank you.

          • But LadLad isn't all the LGBT or are they the same organization? I took LGBT to refer to generic non hetero orientation. So what I said is not changing the subject, I said Yes LAdlad was sidelined but I also said that if the LGBT's are really represented by ladlad then yes they but if Ladlad claims they represent them but in reality they only represent a minority of LGBT's then No.I SAID THIS:”Well the Comelec failed to prove that the petitioners were fostering immoral behavior. ( I am not saying that they do) That's all it means”YOU:I already lifted text from the ruling to prove that this is inaccurate. The ruling also states that the supreme court did not allow Comelec to use public morals as grounds to bar ladlad. Why would you not acknowledge that “public morals” was not allowed by the SC to be used against Ladlad when the text concretely shows this?Okay so you showed that the SC did not allow them to use that reason and I said the Comelec failed to prove it. I just assumed that the SC struck that down because the Comelec could not show due cause for that particular ruling. No big deal for me.

          • Yes, Ladlad represents LGBT people. Ladlad was short of 20,000 votes given a campaign period of 3 weeks. So I will take your statement of "LGBT's are really represented by ladlad then yes" to close this item. Thank you.

            "Okay so you showed that the SC did not allow them to use that reason and I said the Comelec failed to prove it. I just assumed that the SC struck that down because the Comelec could not show due cause for that particular ruling. No big deal for me."

            It is a big deal for me because this is important jurisprudence that can be used in the future. It tells the public that "public morals" is not a just cause for the SC. But in any case, I will close this item. Thank you.

          • “Yes, Ladlad represents LGBT people. Ladlad was short of 20,000 votes given a campaign period of 3 weeks. So I will take your statement of “LGBT's are really represented by ladlad then yes” to close this item. Thank you.”Sorry but they were short of 20,000 votes so until they get it next time then i will agree

          • Precisely why the party list system is so flawed imagine you get a seat in congress for representing .15% of the general population which are also co-represented in their own respective districts.

          • Right. I agree that the party list system is flawed. I'm with you on that. But again, the original intent of our discussion is that I've been trying to tell you that LGBT people are sidelined politically. So I cited Ladlad's case. And again, you've already made the following statements:

            "Was the LGBT sidelined politically, sure."

            "I am not defending their ruling, in fact I too find that unfair for the Ladlad."

            "Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined."

            So, I should already by closing this item because I see those statements as a sign that you now agree with me. Right?

    • //But to say it’s purely gender bias is oversimplifying the position. One only has to watch and see what happens in gay pride marches to realize that there is certain behavior demonstrated that I would be embarrassed to have my children see.//

      Watching my dad become a stupid, narrow-minded, intolerant bigot is certainly not something that crosses your mind.

      //I don;t understand why people in that forum seem to be under the impression that just because I say that homosexuality is disordered that I want to bully, that is pretty immature. //

      It's no different from the the bully who says "I don't hate nerds. I just think they're freaks!" Really dboncan – do you ever listen to the bullshit you say?

      • Perhaps you might try parading with phallic symbols dressed up like a prostitute and see whether your child denies who you are to him. If he doesn't react to it then there is something wrong.

        • //Perhaps you might try parading with phallic symbols dressed up like a prostitute and see whether your child denies who you are to him. //

          It's a lot better than me telling my kid I spend every waking hour of my life denying minorities civil rights.

          • “It's a lot better than me telling my kid I spend every waking hour of my life denying minorities civil rights.”I am sure you would! Good day.

    • The presumption that your particular moral preferences and choice of lifestyle are the ones magically inscribed into nature is cute. Your belief that the only absolute analysis of ethics is your own is even more adorable.

      You keep spouting about “natural moral law” as if it was etched into the very fabric of the universe. You even purport that it is not only Roman Catholic but universal for all cultures. There have been many philosophical schools that claimed to be morality determined by nature and can be characterized as “natural law.” Aquinas’ own rambling psychopathy is only one of those conflicting schools.

      Assuming that killing, lying, stealing, adultery and fornication are all objectively bad under all circumstances, it implies nothing still about the right of the State, or the right of bigots like you, to impose on the LGBT when their actions and desire to live their lives affect you not in the slightest.

      But to contest your childish and simplistic morals, there are situations where killing, lying, or stealing are morally justifiable acts when further and greater suffering can be prevented. This implies nothing about the subjectivity or relativeness of morality, only that ethical considerations require actual thought and not the servile legalism you advocate. The objectionable aspects of adultery can be subsumed into lying and the term itself is value-laden as a puritanical intrusion into other people’s lives. (Some married adults mutually agree on having sex with other people. Get over it.) “Fornication” is just some obsession of busybodies like you wanting to meddle in other people’s private lives. Other people are having consensual sex without your permission? How revolting!

      • "But to contest your childish and simplistic morals, there are situations where killing, lying, or stealing are morally justifiable acts when further and greater suffering can be prevented. This implies nothing about the subjectivity or relativeness of morality, only that ethical considerations require actual thought and not the servile legalism you advocate"

        Here is where your argument fails: Immoral acts are always immoral. Notice how you say "situations" which means that situations are relative not the acts. Applying a moral standard to a given situation does not make an act relative. Besides if you believe what you preach, then who are you tell me I am wrong? who are you to "moralize" to me? You lose the right to impose any kind of moral norm on me because you do not believe in absolute moral norms so if I were going to simplistically refute you all I have to say is: I want to do what I want to do so shove it. But because I believe in absolutes like bullying or oppressing is bad, I don't. Get it.

        • I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the fact that moral systems can be complex with many moving parts flies over your head. Here’s an absolutely morally wrong act derived from my “relativist” morality: having sex with a child and keeping the rapist in society free to victimize another child. Even this has many aspects that contribute to its “immorality”: having sex, the recipient of which is a moral agent (that is, a being with a capacity for suffering) incapable of consent, this incongruence between consent and the reception of pain and trauma generally brings about suffering (an empirical and scientific fact about brains and how they react to the world around it). If there is anything that can be said to be immoral, it is those actions in the context of increased suffering.

          Is it wrong to slice through the neck of a fully conscious and feeling human being? I can think of one situation where it is not evil: tracheating a person (with the full intention of continuing to live) whose throat has shut, making it impossible to breathe. That situations aren’t black and white doesn’t mean morality is relative. It means morality requires the scientific values of discussion, criticism, and self-correction in order to approach moral truth. I understand that none of these attributes are encouraged by your lifestyle choice.

          I can tell you that you are wrong because you are and I believe that you are. The same freedom is afforded to you, not by your thought policing God, but by this secular state, and the largely secular nations that allow the Internet to exist uncensored. But do you see me denying your right to be a bully or a bigot on the Internet? 🙂 Do you see me advocating the end of sexual relations between bigots? If only your side of the aisle was as accommodating to the rights of others, the LGBT’s equal right to enter contracts the state recognizes for heterosexuals but not for others and the right of the non-superstitious not to be forced into following state-sponsored religious dogma.

          • My question is: If you say morality is relative, who are you to tell me that what I am doing is wrong? it's as simple a question as that and yet you have to jump hoops and do somersaults just to try to prove your point. Sure you can tell me I am wrong because it is your taste and you are free to tell me that but so what, without a higher standard of moral objectivity to appeal to, your saying that to me falls within the purview of mere opinion. Only moral absolutists can say to someone, what you are doing is right or wrong because it is right or wrong not because I feel it is.

          • I am not a moral relativist. That you keep accusing me of being one just shows that you have reading comprehension skills matched only by your ability to argue. Moral truths exist and these are empirical and scientific claims about brains and how they respond to the environment.

          • If you're not a moral relativist, then let me ask you this: Do you believe in moral absolutes? By this I mean moral acts that areunchangeable, objective, and universal?

          • Yes. Moral absolutes do not need to be as facile as "lying is always wrong" or asinine as "gay sex is icky yuck yuck." Moral claims need only empirically describe actions of moral agents and their objective effects on the brains of other moral agents in order to be "absolute."

            If anything can be absolutely wrong, it is this: the worst possible misery and suffering for all conscious creatures in the universe is absolutely wrong, without equivocation. And any act that moves away from this state would be an "objectively" right action.

            Wrongness would be meaningless outside considering conscious experience. There may be degrees of rightness; there may be equally right things to do in a situation. That there are many answers to moral questions doesn't mean that there are no objectively correct answers.

            And any moral claim can be put to the test. Nothing needs to be taken on faith. This principle would be applicable even for other imaginable conscious creatures that are not human, which is a lot more than you can say about Catholic morals.

          • “Moral absolutes do not need to be as facile as “lying is always wrong” or asinine as “gay sex is icky yuck yuck.”I never said that moral absolutes are simple, you are assuming that, on the other hand, morality is difficult only to those who have no principles.”Moral claims need only empirically describe actions of moral agents and their objective effects on the brains of other moral agents in order to be “absolute.””Moral “claims” as against moral absolutes? To say “claims” means that morals are a matter of opinion therefor you just showed that you are in fact a relativist.Your statement is wrought with fallacies:1. People's (moral agents, I assume that only people can be moral because only people have consciences) moral choices are acts therefor moral claims are not merely adjectives but actions.2. People are more than just brains which also means that they don't objectively respond to things the same way.”If anything can be absolutely wrong, it is this: the worst possible misery and suffering for all conscious creatures in the universe is absolutely wrong, without equivocation.”…”Wrongness would be meaningless outside considering conscious experience”So moral objectivity only applies to the conscious? Severely retarded people, comatose people do not qualify for having any moral objective standard apply to them? How can you call that absolute, meaning universal and unchanging, if the rules of morality only apply to those who can perceive it?”This principle would be applicable even for other imaginable conscious creatures that are not human,”Why do non-human creatures have consciences that morality can appeal to? Morality is not merely right or wrong but how one ought to and ought not to behave.So this is your absolutism… a morality that absolutely applies only to those whom you qualify to be conscious, i.e. useful, awake and functioning. What an amusing definition of absolute because, it is not what moral absolutism means. Your definition of absolute is really relative because it is relative to ones reception of your standard. Next time be less flamboyant with your sentences so that you don't run around in circles.

          • Ugh. Do I really need to define "claims"? "Claims" does not imply subjectivity.

            "Your statement is wrought with fallacies:
            1. People's (moral agents, I assume that only people can be moral because only people have consciences) moral choices are acts therefor moral claims are not merely adjectives but actions."

            I use moral agents to emphasize that morality is not exclusive to our branch of the hominid family. Moral culpability increases as capacity for suffering and well-being increases.

            "2. People are more than just brains which also means that they don't objectively respond to things the same way."

            The brain is where all consciousness and experience is realized. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I suggest you stick to reality-based arguments.

            "So moral objectivity only applies to the conscious? Severely retarded people, comatose people do not qualify for having any moral objective standard apply to them?"

            Sigh. I am so saddened that the school system has failed you so terribly. Last I checked, "retarded" people were capable of conscious experience. Those in comas are only moral agents with respect to the future possibility of regaining consciousness. People in comas also present brain activity, though the lack of the prospect of recovery may entail ending treatment, depending on the pre-coma desires of the patient (we do this out of convenience as it is impossible to ask the coma patient.) Brain death is another matter, and even your own retrograde church allows for harvesting organs from brain dead people, suggesting some semblance of acceptance that the brain is the seat of consciousness and moral agency.

            "Why do non-human creatures have consciences that morality can appeal to? Morality is not merely right or wrong but how one ought to and ought not to behave."

            It is this kind of speciesism that is so despicable about your so-called morality. What prevents you from kicking a dog or flaying a cat? They experience suffering, therefore, they are worthy of ethical consideration (though not on equal footing with humans, who are capable of a much broader range of consciousness, well-being, and suffering). Intrinsic to "right" and "wrong" are values of what one ought to do.

            "So this is your absolutism… a morality that absolutely applies only to those whom you qualify to be conscious, i.e. useful, awake and functioning. "

            I dare you to find me using "useful, awake and functioning" at any point. That you equivocate for cheap points is so pathetic of someone with such lofty claims of intelligence and moral ascendancy.

            "Your definition of absolute is really relative because it is relative to ones reception of your standard. Next time be less flamboyant with your sentences so that you don't run around in circles."

            Suffering = bad. Brain stop hurt?

          • 'I use moral agents to emphasize that morality is not exclusive to our branch of the hominid family. Moral culpability increases as capacity for suffering and well-being increases.”So Baboons are morally culpable of what? Culpability may be attributable to animals but moral culpability is only attributable to humans because only humans have an intellect and will. It is the conscience that makes one morally culpable or not.”The brain is where all consciousness and experience is realized. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I suggest you stick to reality-based arguments.”So are you telling me that you are just an entanglement of neurons? If so then are you conscious? If so how big or wide is your consciousness? Can you demonstrate it?”Sigh. I am so saddened that the school system has failed you so terribly. Last I checked, “retarded” people were capable of conscious experience.”So now you change your goal posts again. It is no longer consciousness but experience. Do acephalous people have conscious experience? Do fetuses have consciousness? Ahhh wait you accept abortion as morally okay right? How about people who are acephalous or those whose brain damage is so severe that they have brain waves but are in a permanent vegetative state. Even those whom you say are brain dead may some day regain consciousness… it has happened. So how do you classify those people?”Those in comas are only moral agents with respect to the future possibility of regaining consciousness. People in comas also present brain activity, though the lack of the prospect of recovery may entail ending treatment, depending on the pre-coma desires of the patient (we do this out of convenience as it is impossible to ask the coma patient.) “”Brain death is another matter, and even your own retrograde church allows for harvesting organs from brain dead people, suggesting some semblance of acceptance that the brain is the seat of consciousness and moral agency.”No the church does not allow harvesting organs from brain-dead individuals for as long as they are not fully reliant on artificial means of sustaining life. I don;t know where you picked that up from.”It is this kind of speciesism that is so despicable about your so-called morality. What prevents you from kicking a dog or flaying a cat? “Because cruelty is immoral. not just because they suffer. Which means that my morality is not dependent on the effects. So to you if one does not suffer, you can inflict whatever you want to it. if we can drug a person and make him feel euphoric and kill him, that's is okay because he didn't suffer?”They experience suffering, therefore, they are worthy of ethical consideration (though not on equal footing with humans, who are capable of a much broader range of consciousness, well-being, and suffering). Intrinsic to “right” and “wrong” are values of what one ought to do.”Therefor you are a relativist. Only those who can experience suffering are worthy of ethical consideration. The ethical consideration is dependent on the outcome. That's not being absolute. You are one confused brian (I was going to say soul but I remembered, your just a bunch of neurons and chemicals)”So this is your absolutism… a morality that absolutely applies only to those whom you qualify to be conscious, i.e. useful, awake and functioning. “I dare you to find me using “useful, awake and functioning” at any point. That you equivocate for cheap points is so pathetic of someone with such lofty claims of intelligence and moral ascendancy.Okay here it is: Consciousness means that aware, awake, responsive, alert, functional… what ever did you mean?”Your definition of absolute is really relative because it is relative to ones reception of your standard. Next time be less flamboyant with your sentences so that you don't run around in circles.”Suffering = bad. Brain stop hurt?Relative=dependent on something.My friend, you are a relativist and you don't even know it.

          • “So Baboons are morally culpable of what?”

            Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot. We have yet to have a good understanding of baboon consciousness. But, what we do know is that they have sufficiently similar capacities for suffering such that it should give us pause before conducting experiments on them, for example.

            “So are you telling me that you are just an entanglement of neurons? If so then are you conscious? If so how big or wide is your consciousness? Can you demonstrate it?”

            All evidence points towards consciousness being a product of neural activity, nothing more. The burden of proof is on you to show that something else apart from the brain is responsible for consciousness.

            “It is no longer consciousness but experience.”

            Experience is corollary to consciousness. How can there be anything such as experience if consciousness is not present? How can consciousness mean anything if nothing is experienced by a conscious agent?

            “Do acephalous people have conscious experience?”

            Probably not. No more than my toenail clippings have conscious experience.

            “Do fetuses have consciousness?”

            Only after a certain point of development, which is still up for debate. We do not know for certain, but we do know that zygotes have no capacity for consciousness. No brain.

            “Even those whom you say are brain dead may some day regain consciousness… it has happened. So how do you classify those people?”

            It’s problematic, but that their lack of consciousness and the bleak prospect of regaining consciousness certainly affects their category as moral agents. Since we do not know for certain, and the possibilities for recovery are often infinitesimal, we defer to the desires of the next of kin, or of the patient’s living will. If we knew for certain that recovery was imminent or, at least, highly likely and the patient was known to have desired revival, then it would be imperative to revive him.

            “No the church does not allow harvesting organs from brain-dead individuals for as long as they are not fully reliant on artificial means of sustaining life. I don;t know where you picked that up from.”

            Here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/sp

            “Because cruelty is immoral.”

            Ah. So cruelty is wrong because it is immoral. That’s so smart. I guess that extends to rocks too. Since cruelty is wrong and not dependent on the recipient’s capacity to suffer.

            “if we can drug a person and make him feel euphoric and kill him, that’s is okay because he didn’t suffer?”

            It’s certainly better than killing him in full awareness of the suffering. But, surely, a better state of affairs would be that where suffering is minimal, which implies that well-being is maximized. Killing someone against their will certainly does not fall under maximized well-being.

            “Therefor you are a relativist. Only those who can experience suffering are worthy of ethical consideration.”

            Isn’t my claim that only conscious creatures are worthy of ethical consideration an absolute? 😉

            “Okay here it is: Consciousness means that aware, awake, responsive, alert, functional… what ever did you mean?”

            Interesting that you dropped your innuendo of “useful.” Yes, conscious creatures are aware, not necessarily in a state of wakefulness, but responding to stimuli, not necessarily alert (whatever that’s supposed to mean), and with a functional neural network.

            “Relative=dependent on something.”

            If Catholic morality = dependent on following the will of god
            and dependent on something = relative
            then Catholic morality = relative

            Relativism means a specific body of philosophical thought. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • “Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot. We have yet to have a good understanding of baboon consciousness. But, what we do know is that they have sufficiently similar capacities for suffering such that it should give us pause before conducting experiments on them, for example. “I won't hold my breath if i were you.”All evidence points towards consciousness being a product of neural activity, nothing more. The burden of proof is on you to show that something else apart from the brain is responsible for consciousness. “If you tell me then that all consciousness comes from the brain activity, then you should be able to measure how much consciousness you have, right? Since you have a finite amount of brain activity then you must be able to produce a measurable amount of consciousness as well. If you say it exists in the brain, you should prove to me that it can be quantified or that it is quantifiable. I say it exists elsewhere because precisely I say that it cannot be quantified as part of purely brain activity so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it's existence in brain activity.Perhaps generic consciousness as those found in animals as well but not self-awareness kind of consciousness. Are animals self-aware? Nope but they have neural activity. If consciousness the way we see it in humans is a mere product of neuronal synapse and neurotransmitter reception, then one person cannot moralize on another because we are merely a function of our brain activity. If you say that we have societal norms that dictate the way we behave, I would say but those norms are merely a subjective consensus of a common brain activity and should not in any way impose any restrictions on my behavior. Thus suffering and moral culpability have no meaning to me except that some are wired to feel pain and give meaning to it some are not. I think this evidence, while not apparent or sensorially empirical, is experientially empirical based on your arguments alone.”Up to a certain point of development, which is still up for debate. We do not know for certain, but we do know that zygotes have no capacity for consciousness. No brain. “that is exactly why you are a relativist, you base morality on capacity and completeness and not on nature.”Here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/sp… “Did you even read this? This is what it says:With regard to the parameters used today for ascertaining death – whether the “encephalic” signs or the more traditional cardio-respiratory signs – the Church does not make technical decisions. She limits herself to the Gospel duty of comparing the data offered by medical science with the Christian understanding of the unity of the person, bringing out the similarities and the possible conflicts capable of endangering respect for human dignity.Here it can be said that the criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely thecompleteandirreversiblecessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology. Therefore a health-worker professionally responsible for ascertaining death can use these criteria in each individual case as the basis for arriving at that degree of assurance in ethical judgement which moral teaching describes as “moral certainty”. This moral certainty is considered the necessary and sufficient basis for an ethically correct course of action. Only where such certainty exists, and where informed consent has already been given by the donor or the donor's legitimate representatives, is it morally right to initiate the technical procedures required for the removal of organs for transplant.It means that there is absolutely no chance of recovery as judged by all clinical parameters with full consent. I did say “for as long as they are not fully reliant on artificial means of sustaining life”which means that they are still breathing or functioning on their own.”Ah. So cruelty is wrong because it is immoral. That's so smart. I guess that extends to rocks too. Since cruelty is wrong and not dependent on the recipient's capacity to suffer. “I didn't say that cruelty is wrong because it is immoral, I said Cruelty is morally wrong because it is a sadistic way of making people/creatures suffer. A morally wrong act does not depend on the capacity to suffer. Are you telling me that cruelty is wrong only because there is suffering on the victim, what if the victim does not appear to be suffering much or suffering at all, is the cruelty okay? Cruelty is an act with the intention of making one suffer so even if it is done without any apparent suffering on the victims part, it is wrong. See the problem with a relativists definition is also that the morality of the act is based on the perception of the consequence thus a relativist can say to the Jews in the Nazi camps, well we fed you and dressed you, how is that cruel?”Isn't my claim that only conscious creatures are worthy of ethical consideration an absolute? 😉 “Consideration? What the heck does that mean. The mere fact that you have to use words like consideration means that it is not absolute. Absolute means applied universally.”It's certainly better than killing him in full awareness of the suffering. But, surely, a better state of affairs would be that where suffering is minimal, which implies that well-being is maximized. Killing someone against their will certainly does not fall under maximized well-being. “So an absolutist huh. Better state of affairs/maximized well-being Wow that's pretty darn diplomatic and detached way of looking at killing someone. Absolutist yeah!”If Catholic morality = dependent on following the will of godand dependent on something = relative(false premise) the “something” Catholic morality depends on, God's will, is absolute) the mere act of dependence does not make it relative. What it is dependent on makes it relative.then Catholic morality = relative”Catholic Morality=dependent on following God's will/lawsGod's will/laws are absolute (Ten commandments are absolute)Catholic morality=absoluteYour morality=dependent on consequencesconsequences are relativemorality=relative”Relativism means a specific body of philosophical thought. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. “Yeah and you don't even know that you are.I

          • "If you tell me then that all consciousness comes from the brain activity, then you should be able to measure how much consciousness you have, right?"

            No, not in practice. Not yet, at least. But there is no reason to assume otherwise. Damage to the brain = damage to consciousness. Is it too much of a stretch to say that destruction of brain = destruction of consciousness?

            "Are animals self-aware?"

            Some are. They recognize themselves in mirrors.

            "If consciousness the way we see it in humans is a mere product of neuronal synapse and neurotransmitter reception, then one person cannot moralize on another because we are merely a function of our brain activity."

            That's good because I'm beginning to doubt that you have functioning brain activity at all.

            "I say it exists elsewhere because precisely I say that it cannot be quantified as part of purely brain activity so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it's existence in brain activity."

            Argument from ignorance. That the exact answer isn't known yet because neuroscience isn't perfected doesn't mean your guess is as good as mine.

            "If you say that we have societal norms that dictate the way we behave, I would say but those norms are merely a subjective consensus of a common brain activity and should not in any way impose any restrictions on my behavior. "

            No. Stop trying to construct my position as strawmen you read from your apologetics textbook. There is nothing in our correspondence implying that I believe that social norms dictate morality.

            "that is exactly why you are a relativist, you base morality on capacity and completeness and not on nature."

            Neuroscience is the study of the nature and properties of neurons. Consciousness is realized as neural activity. Suffering and well-being are facets of this neural activity. That's as objective as you're going to get. Brains do not simply 'prefer' not to be stabbed by a knife. Neural systems do not simply 'prefer' not to experience rape.

            "Consideration? What the heck does that mean. The mere fact that you have to use words like consideration means that it is not absolute. Absolute means applied universally."

            Jesus Christ. Consideration, contemplation, thought.

            English, do you speak it?

            "So an absolutist huh. Better state of affairs/maximized well-being Wow that's pretty darn diplomatic and detached way of looking at killing someone. Absolutist yeah!"

            You really really need to read more than what your priest allows you to read.

            " didn't say that cruelty is wrong because it is immoral, I said Cruelty is morally wrong because it is a sadistic way of making people/creatures suffer."

            Cruelty is defined by suffering. If an action does not induce suffering, it is not cruel. Sadism is the enjoyment of suffering of others. Again, English, do you speak it?

            "Catholic Morality=dependent on following God's will/laws
            God's will/laws are absolute (Ten commandments are absolute)
            Catholic morality=absolute"

            Moving goalposts again. You said that "relative = dependent on something." Now you're just using special pleading. Depending your morality on other things is relativism unless you like it.

          • “No, not in practice. Not yet, at least. But there is no reason to assume otherwise.So you can't and until you can, it is reasonable to assume it can't.”Damage to the brain = damage to consciousness. Is it too much of a stretch to say that destruction of brain = destruction of consciousness?”If the brain is the tool of the mind to express itself to the world, naturally when the tool is damaged, it can no longer function to express what is in the mind. Proof of this are the thousands of near-death cases whose brain function has ceased but have come back to life fully aware of what was happening around them during the time they were dead. Another one is an fMRI study on a patient in persistent vegetative state, diagnosed with no brain function. Yet the patient gives off the same image in fMRI studies as that of normal individuals when given the same audible suggestions of events. In other words a strict materialist interpretation like the one you show above is too simplistic. The real answer is, we don't know but some evidence points to yes, consciousness or what we call the mind is bigger than mere function of the brain.”Some are. They recognize themselves in mirrors.”Perhaps it is but what degree of self-awareness do they have and these are mostly confined to higher primates. By and large animals are not self-aware”That's good because I'm beginning to doubt that you have functioning brain activity at all.”We share the same opinion then.”No. Stop trying to construct my position as strawmen you read from your apologetics textbook. There is nothing in our correspondence implying that I believe that social norms dictate morality. “Of course you imply it. By saying it is merely a product of brain activity then morality becomes what society thinks it is, the popular norm. Either morality comes from an absolute source or from something man made.”Cruelty is defined by suffering. If an action does not induce suffering, it is not cruel. Sadism is the enjoyment of suffering of others. Again, English, do you speak it? “Look up the definition? Cruelty is the sadistic disregard or indifference to suffering, it is not inflicting suffering per se. So it is not defined by suffering but the sadistic disregard of it. One can be cruel without directly inflicting pain and suffering on someone. Cruelty is not only defined by inducing suffering but there is the component of a sadistic disregard for it. A person show whips a prisoner as punishment but does not enjoy it is not cruel but one who enjoys it is cruel. Perhaps you were just taught a different English.At any rate, an act is objectively good or bad regardless of the consequence that was what we were talking about.”Moving goalposts again. You said that “relative = dependent on something.” Now you're just using special pleading.I assumed you understood me to mean dependent on something changeable, like in your case, consequences.”Depending your morality on other things is relativism unless you like it. “This is absurd reasoning.Depending your morality on something relative is relativism. If my morality is dependent on something absolute how can it be relative?

          • “I can tell you that you are wrong because you are and I believe that you are. ”

            This statement contradicts itself: to say “because you are” means we both recognize that an objectively wrong thing is being done on the other hand to say “I believe that you are” means you think I wrong based on your own beliefs which may just be a matter of opinion.

            ” am not a moral relativist. That you keep accusing me of being one just shows that you have reading comprehension skills matched only by your ability to argue. Moral truths exist and these are empirical and scientific claims about brains and how they respond to the environment.”

            Well you sure sound like one. For one thing, to attribute morality to the way the brain responds to the environment is not objective simply because response is not objective in fact it is highly subjective. You commit the error of equating the application of given act to an act itself. To say that a morally bad act is justifiable does not make the act good, it is still a bad act, it just makes one’s culpability less.

          • "the brain responds to the environment is not objective simply because response is not objective in fact it is highly subjective." If you believe that neuroscience is "highly subjective" then I have once again wasted my time with you Mr. Boncan.

      • “You keep spouting about “natural moral law” as if it was etched into the very fabric of the universe.”That is why it's called “natural” because it is etched into human nature. So we claim that these moral laws preceded even Christianity. It's just that the CAtholic church is the only institution that still upholds what she has inherited which others have already forgotten or have abandoned totally.”But to contest your childish and simplistic morals, there are situations where killing, lying, or stealing are morally justifiable acts when further and greater suffering can be prevented. This implies nothing about the subjectivity or relativeness of morality, only that ethical considerations require actual thought and not the servile legalism you advocate. The objectionable aspects of adultery can be subsumed into lying and the term itself is value-laden as a puritanical intrusion into other people's lives. (Some married adults mutually agree on having sex with other people. Get over it.)”But adultery in itself is morally bad even if both parties affected by it, which is very rare behavior by the way, agree to it. There are more couples to whom adultery is considered to be devastating morally bad than those who openly advocate it, I would say exceedingly (99.9% even). That is why your morality is relativistic because you perceive morals as only being bad or good depending on the consequences. The error here is that consequences do not judge actions (that is Machiavellian/Mussolini-an relativism), it is actions judge consequences! Isn't it the child who says: “I hit him because he hit me” and the adult who says “hitting someone is bad”, so who has the childish and simplistic morals now?””Fornication” is just some obsession of busybodies like you wanting to meddle in other people's private lives. Other people are having consensual sex without your permission?”So much for your claim to be an absolutist.

        • “So we claim that these moral laws preceded even Christianity. It’s just that the CAtholic church is the only institution that still upholds what she has inherited which others have already forgotten or have abandoned totally.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

          “But adultery in itself is morally bad even if both parties affected by it, which is very rare behavior by the way, agree to it. There are more couples to whom adultery is considered to be devastating morally bad than those who openly advocate it, I would say exceedingly (99.9% even). ”

          This, dear readers, is what you call projecting. Ever heard of an open marriage? Yeah, what a disgusting concept. Eeww. Mr. Boncan doesn’t like it, therefore no one else does.

          ” That is why your morality is relativistic because you perceive morals as only being bad or good depending on the consequences. ”

          Consequentialism ≠ relativism. The consequences of an action can be objectively bad. Is it a good idea to put cholera in the water supply? Probably not.

          “hitting someone is bad”

          Are you sure this is absolute? So, if someone is about to be raped, they cannot hit the attacker? That sure explains how the Catholic Church operates.

          • “This, dear readers, is what you call projecting. Ever heard of an open marriage? Yeah, what a disgusting concept. Eeww. Mr. Boncan doesn't like it, therefore no one else does.”It is to most married people not just to me, in fact we have laws that punish adultery. Just because there is consent does not make an act right.”Consequentialism ≠ relativism.Of course it is. Once an act is judged based on its consequences, then it is relativism.The consequences of an action can be objectively bad. Is it a good idea to put cholera in the water supply? Probably not. “But the consequence is not the moral act, it is the result of that act. So in your example, putting cholera in a water supply is not the consequence but the action. Once a moral standard depends on a consequence, it becomes relative to that consequence, change the consequence and you change the moral standard. Change the meaning of that consequence then you change the meaning of that moral standard.”there are situations where killing, lying, or stealing are morally justifiable acts when further and greater suffering can be prevented””Are you sure this is absolute? So, if someone is about to be raped, they cannot hit back?. “The Intention and the act themselves justifies whether an act is good or bad morally, not the result. If you kill someone because of the intention of self-defense, then there is no moral culpability. if you kill because of aggression then you are morally culpable of that. The act is good in so far as the intention and act itself are good. So killing in itself is objectively bad but with the intention of self defense, which is good , therefor the act is not morally bad. So to if I want to feed the hungry, a good act but do it for publicity, a bad act, the act becomes morally bad. Also if i euthanize a person suffering from a disease which is bad, because I feel compassion which is good, it is still a morally bad act.”That sure explains how the Catholic Church operates”Nope that is how your mind operates.

          • "It is to most married people not just to me, in fact we have laws that punish adultery. Just because there is consent does not make an act right."

            So, morality is determined by majority rule? Just because most people agree on something, doesn't make it right. Most people believe in a god. Most people believe in magical thinking. Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral. We have idiotic laws in this country.

            This is where your bigotry stems from, that you think that people consenting to actions that affect only themselves must be subject to your tastes, preferences, and lifestyle choice.

            "Of course it is. Once an act is judged based on its consequences, then it is relativism."

            No. I'll make it easier for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

            "But the consequence is not the moral act, it is the result of that act. So in your example, putting cholera in a water supply is not the consequence but the action."

            What if I put cholera in a large pool of water, label it "cholera: do not drink." Would that be unethical?

            "The Intention and the act themselves justifies whether an act is good or bad morally, not the result."

            Ohh… so now it's the intention too. Who's moving goalposts now?

            Intention is merely another aspect of the brain. It is relevant to ethics only because intention reflects a general pattern of behavior salient to other consequences. If a man trips and pushes another man into an incoming train, that is an unfortunate accident. If a man purposefully pushes another man into an incoming train, that man may be a danger to other persons and must be removed from society to prevent further harm until such time it is determined that the man is no longer a threat to others.

          • “So, morality is determined by majority rule? Just because most people agree on something, doesn't make it right. Most people believe in a god. Most people believe in magical thinking. Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral. We have idiotic laws in this country. “What majority it's not just a majority it's near unanimous. What do you mean “agree” they just don't agree they live it. People's lives have suffered, children's security have suffered because of adultery in a marriage. If something is merely an idiotic law, why does it create such pain and suffering when it happens? ARe you telling me that couples merely lack enlightenment. Morality comes from human nature and human conscience, what we call natural law and this is the source of our laws. That Infidelity has been condemned and has made so many people suffer since time immemorial up until the modern era is historical proof of it being a morally deviant behavior and it is overwhelming. The innovation of an “open marriage”on the other hand is new.Most people in most cultures since time immemorial have believed in a god. So that is pretty snooty and arrogant for you, the less than .1% atheists to ever walk this earth, to claim that your atheistic belief is right. You have never been to the other side of the curtain so your atheism is also a matter of faith.”Ohh… so now it's the intention too. Who's moving goalposts now? “Sorry but I didn't know that you were sold short in moral theology.”Intention is merely another aspect of the brain.”Of course intention comes from a thought process. ,”It is relevant to ethics only because intention reflects a general pattern of behavior salient to other consequences.”What “other consequences” might these be? So you mean that an intention is purely neutral. There can be no bad or good intentions? So you mean if I give to the poor because I intended to show off, my intentions are not bad because the consequence of my actions are beneficial? Then there is no morality there because it is the intention that stirs up ones conscience and conscience judges the moral deed.”If a man trips and pushes another man into an incoming train, that is an unfortunate accident. If a man purposefully pushes another man into an incoming train, that man may be a danger to other persons and must be removed from society to prevent further harm until such time it is determined that the man is no longer a threat to others. ”

          • “What majority it's not just a majority it's near unanimous.”I'd like to see your statistics that nearly all people do not like consensually agreed upon open marriages.” People's lives have suffered, children's security have suffered because of adultery in a marriage.”Because spouses lied to each other. We were arguing about open marriages, remember?”The innovation of an \”open marriage\”on the other hand is new.”Cars are also new. Things change. People change. People like the change. Get over it. No one's forcing you into an open marriage.”Most people in most cultures since time immemorial have believed in a god. So that is pretty snooty and arrogant for you, the less than .1% atheists to ever walk this earth, to claim that your atheistic belief is right. You have never been to the other side of the curtain so your atheism is also a matter of faith.”Most people in most cultures have also had some sort of other forms of superstition and pre-scientific myths. Truth is not by majority rule.”What \”other consequences\” might these be? So you mean that an intention is purely neutral. There can be no bad or good intentions? So you mean if I give to the poor because I intended to show off, my intentions are not bad because the consequence of my actions are beneficial? Then there is no morality there because it is the intention that stirs up ones conscience and conscience judges the moral deed.”Sigh. I have no idea how you read these words from mine.This is pointless. You don't even read these words.Kumquat.

          • “I'd like to see your statistics that nearly all people do not like consensually agreed upon open marriages.”Seriously you need stats for that? I can't even begin to wonder where you come from. Ask you parents for one, then ask the parents of all your freethinking buddies then look down the line in your family. SheeshDespite the vast attention given to these alternative lifestyles in the 1970s, and despite the more recent claims that Americans are 'returning to traditional models of monogamous marriage,' there is no scientific basis for concluding that these patterns increased in popularity earlier or that they have become less common in the 1980s and 1990s.” (Weiss, 1997)”Because spouses lied to each other. We were arguing about open marriages, remember?”There you go. lied to each other. so it's only the lying that hurt not the fact that they were unfaithful.”Most people in most c ultures have also had some sort of other forms of superstition and pre-scientific myths. Truth is not by majority rule.”the point is most people do believe in the after life. not just most people but most cultures, from all these millennia who have walked this earth. To say that “yer all wrong” is pretty arrogant. We could also say “you are wrong” at any rate you don't know the truth of it either. You only know what you can prove scientifically which means that what is not natural is un provable by science but it is also irrefutable by science. You can only take your atheism by faith.”Sigh. I have no idea how you read these words from mine.This is pointless. You don't even read these words.”Hmmm could it be because you were very vague.

          • //Most people in most cultures since time immemorial have believed in a god. //

            Most people used to think that the earth was flat too. And furthermore, what do you is the default religion of people when they're born? 😉

          • “Intention is merely another aspect of the brain. It is relevant to ethics only because intention reflects a general pattern of behavior salient to other consequences. If a man trips and pushes another man into an incoming train, that is an unfortunate accident. If a man purposefully pushes another man into an incoming train, that man may be a danger to other persons and must be removed from society to prevent further harm until such time it is determined that the man is no longer a threat to others.”The problem with you my friend is that you embellish your words unnecessarily perhaps your just profound perhaps your trying to be profound but you could have stated this simply. Intentions are only ethically relevant based on its consequences. So good intention if consequence is good, bad if bad.You may as well have just said that intentions are judged by the results of ones actions…. isn't this relativistic, again?

    • As I've said earlier about the narrow column size, I'm reposting the comment here:

      1. "Well if you don't consider moral norms to be grasped as a factual reality separate from material facts, I suppose the answer would be Yes."
      -closed- Thank you!

      But at the risk of belaboring this point, you said "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste." Same-sex marriage is legal in 10 countries and other countries recognize civil unions and its equivalents. So in all these countries, same-sex marriage is part of their natural moral standards and is not a matter of taste. Correct?

      2. "But curiously there are several articles on line that have commented on the effects (cost and societal repercussions) of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effec… Let me know what you think of their analysis and how it can applied per country."

      I don't consider it an analysis. It is a biased narrative of the writers observations. It presents a lot of REACTION to the new law but presents no measurable IMPACT. Also, it only represents Massachussetts (which is not even a country). What about the 10 countries where same-sex marriage is legal?

      • “I don't consider it an analysis. It is a biased narrative of the writers observations. It presents a lot of REACTION to the new law but presents no measurable IMPACT. Also, it only represents Massachussetts (which is not even a country). What about the 10 countries where same-sex marriage is legal?”Perhaps. But it is a compilation of data and observations that are at least a first step towards an impact analysis. I am almost sure that there are more specific data here and there that have not made it out yet.

        • 1. Just answer this question: So in all these countries, same-sex marriage is part of their natural moral standards and is not a matter of taste. Correct or incorrect?

          2. "It abandoned this not necessarily from any sort of malice or rebellion but from a misdirected stand for compassion." So now you're saying that laws are not based on natural moral standards but based on compassion (regardless if the compassion is misdirected or not). Correct or incorrect?

          3. "Perhaps. But it is a compilation of data and observations that are at least a first step towards an impact analysis. I am almost sure that there are more specific data here and there that have not made it out yet." – So this brings us back to "WE DON'T KNOW YET" But anyway, it's been established that your opposition to same-sex marriage is opinion and not based on data so no point pursuing this further.

          • I did answer your question. It has become a matter of taste because precisely the law changed when it shouldn't have.”So now you're saying that laws are not based on natural moral standards but based on compassion (regardless if the compassion is misdirected or not). Correct or incorrect?”No I meant some of those who wanted to change the traditional understanding of morality my have had noble causes, albeit misdirected. I didn't want to insinuate that just because someone is a moral relativist, they cannot have noble intentions.”So this brings us back to “WE DON'T KNOW YET” But anyway, it's been established that your opposition to same-sex marriage is opinion and not based on data so no point pursuing this further.”Sorry but you want to shoehorn my views into a yes or no answer. That kind of reductionism cannot possibly work for a complex subject as morality. So the answer is… again, if the only data you consider is stats, then we don't know, but stats are not the only data we have. We have data from experience from other moral choices we have made which have the same implications, those are not a matter of opinion but data too. Even if the data is still lacking, we can extrapolate it. Extrapolation is a valid process you know.

          • 1. You said: "It has become a matter of taste because precisely the law changed when it shouldn't have." id est: law is now a matter of taste

            And: "some of those who wanted to change the traditional understanding of morality my have had noble causes, albeit misdirected" id est: law is based on noble causes

            Then you should recant your original statement: "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste"

            2. "We have data from experience from other moral choices we have made which have the same implications, those are not a matter of opinion but data too."

            Where is this data? Present it.

          • What's your point? Laws, especially as it pertains to morality, are not a matter of taste. So I said they changed it because moral relativism has become so pervasive so as to make these people act and think that laws are a matter of taste. I said also that many of those who change laws as a matter of taste, i.e. moral relativists, do it, not because of malicious intent, i.e. they want to destroy society, but because of a misdirected compassion. I was talking about noble intentions and not causes.”Where is this data? Present it.”2000 years of history of not recognizing homosexual unions as valid marriages… that enough data for you?

          • Did I say tradition? I said history of the understanding of what marriage is. For goodness sake de vera, even the document you presented, the UN Declaration on Human Rights is on my side. Now you saying even that is wrong?

          • "Did I say tradition? I said history of the understanding of what marriage is."

            I'm not talking about traditions either. I'm talking about the fallacy "Appeal to Tradition" as in:

            "Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

            "For goodness sake de vera, even the document you presented, the UN Declaration on Human Rights is on my side. Now you saying even that is wrong?"

            It's not on your side. You can't use the UDHR as a stand alone article. It has the Yogyakarta Principles to supplement it because of changing times and needs. Much like the old testament has to be taken with the new testament.

          • I said I was appealing to human history.So tell me if the UNDHR accepted it why does it not specify that on marriage?Has the UN accepted the principles as a matter of policy?

          • //So tell me if the UNDHR accepted it why does it not specify that on marriage?//

            The UN seems to be perfectly fine with same sex marriage. The Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was in fact quite vocal about voicing her support for Iceland's move to legalize same-sex marriage.
            http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3508

            And given this was an official press release from the UN itself, I'd guess it's safe to say that the organization as a whole endorses Nillay's statement.

          • So what? The UN also promotes abortion, it does not make it in any way true and binding. Iceland seems to be a good place for you tom move.

          • I cant use the UNDHR as a stand alone document, but you did when you introduced it. Then you introduced another one which isn't even a UN document.

          • "What's your point?"

            My point is that you should not have categorically said: "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste"

            That statement describes what you desire for but it is not the reality. You yourself said:

            "It has become a matter of taste"

            "some of those who wanted to change the traditional understanding of morality my have had noble causes, albeit misdirected"

            "many of those who change laws as a matter of taste, i.e. moral relativists, do it, not because of malicious intent, i.e. they want to destroy society, but because of a misdirected compassion."

            Your three statements above describe reality and are in direct contradiction to your original statement. So you should have said:

            "Laws, my friend SHOULD BE based on natural moral standards not taste"

          • It has become a matter of taste… I was criticizing the fact that many countries have fallen into moral relativity. IT HAS BECOME… which implies that IT USED TO BE…yes my three statements describe the reality that morality is becoming relative but that in no way makes it true!

          • Right. So just admit that you should not have said this:

            "Laws, my friend are based on natural moral standards not taste"

            And should have said this:

            "Laws, my friend SHOULD BE based on natural moral standards not taste"

          • seriously this is a point of contention? to say “are” means historically that they have always been understood to be. To say “should” be assumes they aren't or weren't but should, which puts my view as mere opinion!

          • I think we have reached the end of this exchange. I have clearly stated my position. Your strongest point, the UNDHR has been shown to be in my favor since it lacks the specifics that a policy document should contain. Even the Yogy document is still being debated among UN member nations. The document may or may not be adapted by our country. At any rate. I think from this point on we will just be splitting hairs.

          • I was typing my responses when your message popped out. I will accept your offer to end this exchange.

            I will gladly acknowledge your position on the UDHR and Yogyakarta principles with reservations but on my end, my take away is that I was able to establish the following:

            1. dboncan agrees there is a need for legislation against discrimination but notes that redundancy of laws is a minor issue:

            "I agree because it doesn’t only happen to homosexuals but to everyone especially the poor but we are back on the same boat. A bill like this would not guarantee it’s implementation either. If the existing laws are not obeyed for one segment of society, why should we expect this to be obeyed to the letter too? But I will give this to you since redundancy of laws to me is a minor issue. "

            2. dboncan says "no disagreement" in response to ron's statement that LGBT people acknowledge that discrimination against other sectors also exists.

            3. dboncan agreed that homosexuality is not a third sex and is a variant of being male and female by saying:

            (1) "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that" and (2) "i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness."

            4. dboncan acknowledged that LGBT are sidelined politically through the following statements:

            (1) "Was the LGBT sidelined politically, sure." (2) "I am not defending their ruling, in fact I too find that unfair for the Ladlad." (3) "Based on what happened i suppose you could say that they were sidelined." (4) "I suppose yes."

            5. dboncan will agree that current taxation of same-sex couples is discriminatory once the family code is changed:

            "If the family code changes then you are right it is discriminatory."

            6. dboncan acknowledged: "Okay your right, there can be true love in a homosexual relationship."

            You might think they are trivial but they sure mean a lot to me. And just to allay your fears, what I said about SB2814 was that it works both ways. It will also protect you because it protects from discrimination on the basis of religion and protection against hate speech.

            I will keep the summary of our discussion online if you want to refer back to it in the future. The original text we posted is on the second sheet ( bit.ly/13comments )

            This was certainly a challenge but I thoroughly enjoyed it. 🙂 I may not have turned you into an ally (my first objective) but I've changed some of your views about LGBT people (my second objective).

            In case you find yourself in a similar situation in the future, here are two resources you can use so you can anticipate the arguments from our side:

            "Landmark UN Vote on Sexual Orientation" – http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/17/landmark-un-vo

            "UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people" – http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=4074

            The UN Resolution happened just this year in June and the report was released just today, hot off the press!

            Till our next discussion. Have a good day dboncan!

            Ron 🙂

          • Addendum: Read the links you posted and it appears that it is something that we already tackled… LGBT's should not be subjected to violence and discrimination. I think that is clear. As far as I can tell, nothing about marriage is changed by this.

          • http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3508

            //Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrapped up her official visit to Iceland with a statement on Friday commending Iceland “for the significant progress it has achieved through recent legislation removing legal impediments to same-sex marriages.”

            Iceland will become the ninth country to legalize same-sex marriage following legislation that passed the country’s parliament earlier this month. Same-sex marriage is already legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, as well as in some areas of the United States and Mexico.//

            What we can take away from this event is that the UN recognizes gay marriage as an extension of the protection of gay rights.

        • NEW TOPIC INTRODUCED:

          "I have a question: Why is it that homosexuals seem to associate themselves so much with what they do rather than who they are?"

          A person's totality is not limited to who a person is. It includes what a person does. A doctor's title means nothing if the doctor is not allowed to practice. A priest's title means nothing if the priest is not allowed to preach. But I will not comment further because this question has as many answers as there are people who have an opinion on it.

          • Oh, actually, let me comment further. Notice that laws are not only about who a person is but also about what a person can and cannot do? Of course, I have to associate myself with what I can and cannot do because that is part of who I am.

            Before introducing new topics, please be reminded that there are items pending your comments. A summary can be found at bit.ly/13comments but let me help you out by posting part of the summary here:

            comment #3: “A comment above says he is pissed because he can’t hold hands in public without being looked at strangely, should we penalize staring behavior as well?”

            (Awaiting response from dboncan regarding LGBT experience not always being political. Awaiting response regarding SB2814 provisions on forming organizations)

            comment #9: “I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping “rights” which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption.”

            (Awaiting dboncan's reponse if he agrees that marriage and adoption are not reserved for heterosexuals in the context of the UDHR coupled with the Yogyakarta Principles)

            comment #10: “it does not follow that just because someone is productive, they can also contribute to the growth of society in the sense of which i was referring to, i.e. propagate and raise children.”

            (Awaiting dboncan to cite sources that the UDHR and Philippine laws are based on natural laws. Awaiting dboncan to explain why heterosexuals who are unable to or do not intend to propagate are afforded the exception while homosexuals are not)

            comment #12: “It is a pretentious union with pretentious results.”

            (Awaiting response from dboncan to cite examples of behavior that is considered devastating in heterosexual relationships as well as the respective organization that says these practices are devastating)

            comment #13: “cisgendered” seriously there is a term? the terms cis and trans used to be a chemical prefix and the word gender used to refer to parts of speech.” I am so amused, we get a chemical prefix and combine it with a reference to a part of speech and we have a sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.WOW!”

            (Awaiting dboncan to acknowledge ron's request to keep an open mind and respect terminology that is unfamiliar to him.)

          • “A person's totality is not limited to who a person is. It includes what a person does. A doctor's title means nothing if the doctor is not allowed to practice. A priest's title means nothing if the priest is not allowed to preach. But I will not comment further because this question has as many answers as there are people who have an opinion on it.”Did you notice your error here? ASide from the fact that what you mentioned are occupations, what you are saying is that a person is what he does. So using your analogy of doctor and priest, a homosexual is a sodomist? That is pretty low! A person's right to be free from violence is not determined by what he does either. I may call the gay lifestyle as immoral but I would, if the circumstances call for it, give up my life for that person. It all has something to do with love the person hate the deed. Perhaps if you don't see homosexual activity as immoral then there is no point to this.

          • so i suppose adulterous behavior and fornication and masturbation are all up for grabs too? if so then we have a core difference in the why's which may never be resolved.

          • "so i suppose adulterous behavior and fornication and masturbation are all up for grabs too?" – Off topic.

            "if so then we have a core difference in the why's which may never be resolved." – Exactly.

          • Nope not off topic because they are the moral equivalent of what gay behavior is to immoral heterosexual behavior

          • Off topic because your questions was "Why is it that homosexuals seem to associate themselves so much with what they do rather than who they are?"

            Which means our topic should be about reasons why we associate ourselves with what we do, and not the morality/immorality of adulterous behavior, fornication, masturbation, heterosexual behavior, etc, which you are attempting to turn this discussion into.

          • De vera, if totality is what your after, then even you are wrong because you only account for what a person does, even your analogy was erroneous! Now since you brought up totality, a person's totality is what a person is… i.e. his nature as a human being. With that alone, he is valuable. You're trying to wrangle your way out of the predicament you dug yourself into by saying that what a person does defines him, it does not. A doctor who loses his job or a priest who loses his ministerial faculties may no longer be able to practice or preach but his dignity as human being, a person remains. A homosexual is not defined by what he does but by what he is, a person! Being something does not mean totality. Precisely because a person can be a doctor, priest etc… is because he is a person first.That is the core of his being. Defending gay rights reduces a core of a persons being to what he does.

          • When did I do this? : "you only account for what a person does"

            When did I say this? : "what a person does defines him"

            Your question was "Why is it that homosexuals seem to associate themselves so much with what they do rather than who they are?"

            My answer was "A person's totality is NOT LIMITED to who a person is. It INCLUDES what a person does."

            I answered your question directly. I don't see a predicament here.

          • Then you have an even bigger error because what a person does is only a part of what a person is! You are defending a person for what he does, your examples are very telling. Doctor-practice, priest-preaching. So my question is gay homosexual- sodomist… is that your analogy, you never answered it.

          • //"so i suppose adulterous behavior and fornication and masturbation are all up for grabs too?" – Off topic. //

            ron, I believe what dboncan's attempted is a red herring.

          • I didn't wave them away. I just agreed with your perfectly worded statement "Perhaps if you don't see homosexual activity as immoral then there is no point to this."

            Meanwhile, are you waving away the comments below? ( bit.ly/13comments )

            comment #3: “A comment above says he is pissed because he can’t hold hands in public without being looked at strangely, should we penalize staring behavior as well?”

            (Awaiting response from dboncan regarding LGBT experience not always being political. Awaiting response regarding SB2814 provisions on forming organizations)

            comment #9: “I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping “rights” which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption.”

            (Awaiting dboncan's reponse if he agrees that marriage and adoption are not reserved for heterosexuals in the context of the UDHR coupled with the Yogyakarta Principles)

            comment #10: “it does not follow that just because someone is productive, they can also contribute to the growth of society in the sense of which i was referring to, i.e. propagate and raise children.”

            (Awaiting dboncan to cite sources that the UDHR and Philippine laws are based on natural laws. Awaiting dboncan to explain why heterosexuals who are unable to or do not intend to propagate are afforded the exception while homosexuals are not)

            comment #12: “It is a pretentious union with pretentious results.”

            (Awaiting response from dboncan to cite examples of behavior that is considered devastating in heterosexual relationships as well as the respective organization that says these practices are devastating)

            comment #13: “cisgendered” seriously there is a term? the terms cis and trans used to be a chemical prefix and the word gender used to refer to parts of speech.” I am so amused, we get a chemical prefix and combine it with a reference to a part of speech and we have a sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.WOW!”

            (Awaiting dboncan to acknowledge ron's request to keep an open mind and respect terminology that is unfamiliar to him.)

  13. Response 4: I think you are confused: You say that morality is not absolute or objective yet you say that because the UN says so, marriage is an absolute right? If you say that marriage is an absolute right then you must mean it is a natural or moral right (the UN document does appeal to conscience). If it is a natural or moral right, therefor you must believe that morality is objective because to say it is absolute means it is objective. I believe that some rights are absolute but not marriage.
    First it is not absolute because it has limitations: age, sex (male and female) is another, consent, it does say men and women, right? Isn’t that pretty specific to mean male and female? Unlike life and liberty and happiness which are absolute without limitations whatsoever.

    Response 6: But the right you just cited, marriage, discriminates as to age, mental capacity, consent and sex! But life, liberty, happiness have no discrimination whatsoever. Something is only absolute if it is true for all situations, places, time and people. Suffrage is another right that is not absolute.

    • Response 4: "I think you are confused: You say that morality is not absolute or objective yet you say that because the UN says so, marriage is an absolute right? If you say that marriage is an absolute right then you must mean it is a natural or moral right (the UN document does appeal to conscience). If it is a natural or moral right, therefor you must believe that morality is objective because to say it is absolute means it is objective. I believe that some rights are absolute but not marriage.

      My Response: Sorry, but please help me understand how and why you are associating morality to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR does not equate to "natural or moral rights," which means the following argument is non sequitur:

      "If you say that marriage is an absolute right then you must mean it is a natural or moral right"

      There is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights about "natural or moral rights." If you have a source, please cite it.

      • Really? In the declaration, the document appeals to " conscience" and conscience is the judge of what is right or wrong and right or wrong are moral norms therefor the document does appeal to judging something as moral right or wrong on the basis of conscience. It says:

        "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

        If conscience were an opinion then it can neither judge right from wrong behavior in which case the document is a farce. So yo see even the UN document appeals to a certain objective morality by which to judge ones actions.

        • Still, nowhere in the document is morality explicitly mentioned or defined. It mentions reason and conscience but not morality. We can argue about interpretations of morality endlessly so I will just redirect us back to your original comment:

          Question: “How can marriage be an absolute basic human right?”

          Answer: Because it is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    • Response 5: "First it is not absolute because it has limitations: age, sex (male and female) is another, consent, it does say men and women, right? Isn’t that pretty specific to mean male and female? Unlike life and liberty and happiness which are absolute without limitations whatsoever."

      My Response: It looks like you don't have a clear understanding of homosexuality. Homosexuality is one of the many sexual orientations that may be present in both males and females. Which means men and women can either be homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexuals are not a SEPARATE group from men and women but a CLASSIFICATION OF men and women. I, for example, identify as a male person and my sexual orientation is homosexual. I have friends who self-identify as female and their sexual orientation is also homosexual. And at the risk of belaboring this point, I have friends who are male and female and self-identify as heterosexual. So you see, it doesn't matter of you are homosexual or heterosexual. If you are human, then you have all the rights set forth in this declaration.

      If you want to engage in meaningful discussion with LGBT activists, I think you need to understand these terms so that the problem of semantics does not get in the way.

      • You didn't reply to this but I've established that the original wording of marriage in the UDHR requires the Yogyakarta Principles to include homosexuals, and you've already acknowledged that homosexuality is not a separate group from but a variant of men and women albeit it is a disordered variant through the following statements:

        (1) "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that"

        (2) "i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness."

        If you don't object then I will close this item.

    • Response 6: "But the right you just cited, marriage, discriminates as to age, mental capacity, consent and sex! But life, liberty, happiness have no discrimination whatsoever. Something is only absolute if it is true for all situations, places, time and people. Suffrage is another right that is not absolute."

      My Response: Again, human rights are not absolute, human rights are "Universal, Inalienable, Interdependent, Indivisible, Equal and Non-discriminatory"

      Sure, it may exclude pets, minors, and the mentally handicapped, but it still does not exclude homosexuals. It says "men and women" and that includes homosexual men and homosexual women. Again, I think you need to have a better understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.

      • But the document never ever says SExual Orientation it just says sex. To argue homosexuality as a variant of male and female is to say that we have two types of males, hetero and homo and likewise for females and yet in all the world, that standard of variant is not recognized.

        human rights mean many things: there are inalienable rights or moral rights (God-given rights) like it or not that is what makes them inalienable. Then there are what you call legal rights like suffrage, marriage (civil) etc, which vary from country to country, these are not inalienable.

        So to respond to you, inalienable rights are universal and true/legal rights are not universal but are true for a particular legal system.

        • "So to respond to you, inalienable rights are universal and true/legal rights are not universal but are true for a particular legal system."

          The disconnect here is that we are not using the same framework. I have been using the framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but you keep point to true/legal rights civil rights etc. No point debating if my framework is international and yours is domestic.

          "To argue homosexuality as a variant of male and female is to say that we have two types of males, hetero and homo and likewise for females and yet in all the world, that standard of variant is not recognized."

          The World Health Organization, The United Nations, The Psychological Association of the Philippines, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The Australian Psychological Society, all recognize that homosexuality is a "variant" of male and female just as heterosexuality is. Even some churches recognize homosexuality. Please cite your source that it is "not recognized" "in all the world" or rephrase your statement to fit what you can support with data.

          • But no one is legally beholden to that.Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that. She also recognizes it as a disordered orientation.

          • "But no one is legally beholden to that." – No one is legally beholden to that domestically but it may be used in the International Court of Justice

            "Well i was arguing that it is not another sexual variant. But homosexuality is an orientation even the Catholic Church recognizes that." – So you admit that homosexuality is not a third sex but an orientation that is present in both men and women?

          • i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness. but you must admit that there are those militant gays who proclaim and fight for their rights as a third sex. I have had enough discussions with them to hear many sides of the spectrum but of course yours is the most consistent with what it really is, an orientation. i was arguing that they claim third sex because I have had exchanges with those who claim they are!

          • "i do agree that homosexuality is an orientation that represents a disordered sense of maleness or femaleness." – This is all I need. Thank you!

            By admitting that homosexuality is another orientation or "variant" (disordered or not) of men and women, do you now agree that Article 16 Sec 2 (Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family) includes all humans, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual?

            As for the following: "but you must admit that there are those militant gays who proclaim and fight for their rights as a third sex. I have had enough discussions with them to hear many sides of the spectrum but of course yours is the most consistent with what it really is, an orientation. i was arguing that they claim third sex because I have had exchanges with those who claim they are!" – Yes, I agree and acknowledge the existence of these arguments. No debate.

          • “By admitting that homosexuality is another orientation or “variant” (disordered or not) of men and women, do you now agree that Article 16 Sec 2 (Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family) includes all humans, regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual?”No, because in two occasions where they could have meant it to include this variant, they are silent. The first is on the paragraph above this one where they refer to race… sex etc… they never said sexual orientation and sex means male and female and adding one word (orientation) would have made all the difference but they didn't. Second in this paragraph itself, they are silent on the limitations as to sexual orientation. Considering the seeming ambiguity, that if they wanted to be sex-orientation inclusive, they would have said so. It is difficult to imagine that they merely assumed countries would understand it to mean inclusively of homosexuals in such an important policy document.Also, when a document says something without mention of any inclusions of a variant (homosexuals) that is not natural to the subject (men and women) we cannot (should not) assume that they meant to include it.It is common and general knowledge that when reference is made to marriage and family and the terms men and women are used it refers to heterosexual marriage and family. Honestly, when you talk about men and women in the context of marriage, do you really include homosexual unions in your mind? If this is not what they meant meant they were either careless or presumptuous.

          • You must remember that the UDHR was drafted in 1948 so jargon like sexual orientation and gender identity were not mainstream yet. In its original form, the UDHR actually has several gaps so there was a need to create new supplementary documents and protocols. The OPICESCR was drafted to elaborate parts of the UDHR that deals with economic social and cultural rights. The OPICCPR was drafted to elaborate on civil and political rights. The Yogyakarta Principles were drafted to ensure the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity. Principle 4 says:

            "Everyone has the right to found a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Families exist in diverse forms. No family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its member"

            and sub-item B says that states shall:

            "ensure that laws and policies recognise the diversity of family forms, including those not defined by descent or marriage, and take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that no family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members, including with regard to family-related social welfare and other public benefits, employment, and immigration"

            "Honestly, when you talk about men and women in the context of marriage, do you really include homosexual unions in your mind? "

            Of course! But there is no point responding to this and to the rest of the paragraph because it is based on opinion.

          • Well well now you present other “interpretations” of the bill. Lets confine it to the UN dec shall we because that is what we have been talking about. Sorry but that document is that document!

          • Fair enough. I'll give this to you. The UDHR in itself has no explicit reference to "homosexuals" being included in the "men and women" category and needs the Yogyakarta Principles to include other sexual orientations and gender identities. How is that?

  14. Response 1: I agree because it doesn’t only happen to homosexuals but to everyone especially the poor but we are back on the same boat. A bill like this would not guarantee it’s implementation either. If the existing laws are not obeyed for one segment of society, why should we expect this to be obeyed to the letter too? But I will give this to you since redundancy of laws to me is a minor issue.

    Response 2: No disagreement

    Response 3: At any rate, perhaps you didn’t mean it that way but you have to remember that the majority of the LGBT militancy is political in nature. One only has to look at the other places. One of the provisions of the bill is the freedom to organize which to me is too sweeping. Supposing, some LGBT’s would like to put up an organization in a Catholic institution, what protection do these institutions have from upholding their freedom to practice religion without clashing with the provision in this bill?

    • Response 1: -closed- Thank you

      Response 2: -closed- Thank you

      Response 3: "At any rate, perhaps you didn’t mean it that way but you have to remember that the majority of the LGBT militancy is political in nature. One only has to look at the other places."

      My Response: I acknowledge that LGBT activism is political TO SOME. But again, I wrote this article because I don't approve of Acosta saying that we are portraying ourselves to be oppressed and generalizing that all of LGBT activism is political. I just want to point out that some experiences of discrimination happen at a personal level, not at a political level. If I hold hands with my partner in public, I would do it because I want to show my love to my partner not because I want to portray myself as oppressed. In the same manner, when children are bullied and lesbians are raped, they don't allow themselves to be intentionally bullied and raped to show that they are oppressed. It happens because of some people's intolerant behavior towards LGBT people, not because of politics.

    • Response 1: -closed- Thank you

      Response 2: -closed- Thank you

      Response 3:
      "At any rate, perhaps you didn’t mean it that way but you have to remember that the majority of the LGBT militancy is political in nature. One only has to look at the other places."

      My Response: I acknowledge that LGBT actvism is political TO SOME. But again, I wrote this article because I don't approve of Acosta saying that we are portraying ourselves to be oppressed and generalizing that all of LGBT activism is political. I just want to point out that some experiences of discrimination happen at a personal level, not at a political level. If I hold hands in public, I would do it because I want to show my love to my partner not because I want to portray myself as oppressed. In the same manner, when children are bullied and lesbians are raped, they don't allow themselves to be intentionally bullied and raped to show that they are oppressed. It happens because of the some people's intolerant behavior towards LGBT people, not because of politics.

      "One of the provisions of the bill is the freedom to organize which to me is too sweeping. Supposing, some LGBT’s would like to put up an organization in a Catholic institution, what protection do these institutions have from upholding their freedom to practice religion without clashing with the provision in this bill?"

      My Response: Section 4 Article (9) works both ways. It will not only protect discrimination against LGBT people but it will also protect you (religious people) from "activites which promote and incite discrimination":

      "Section 4 Article (9) – Organizing groups and activites which promote and incite discrimination based on ethnicity, race, religion or belief, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, disability, or other status."

  15. "We have documented cases of schools who conduct masculinity tests and reject students who fail this test."

    I really liked your articles, though this particular part piqued my interest. If I may ask, which schools are these? And what about femininity tests, if there are any?

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here