13 Comments that Put dboncan in My LGBT Spotlight

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.

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.

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."

I didn't notice the issue of taxation. could you repeat it please

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.

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?

Yes.

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?

We were talking about societal impact as it pertains to population, YES.

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

//The PRI is a good resource re population.//

Explain why we are require to give any sliver of respect to an organization that's closely affiliated to anti-choice groups like HLI.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/oppositionwatch…

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.

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

Oops, a misstep on my part. They were short of 30,000 not 20,000. However, they got a total of 120,000 out of the needed 150,000. This means they got 80% of the needed votes. That's hardly a minority.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/6827/an-early-declara…

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?

I suppose yes.

Closed. Thank you!

“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.

//I am sure you would! Good day. //

So you're the fucking weatherman now? 😉

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.

“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?

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?

"2000 years of history of not recognizing homosexual unions as valid marriages… that enough data for you?"

Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

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 🙂

thank you

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.

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.

"Perhaps if you don't see homosexual activity as immoral then there is no point to this."

Exactly.

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 noticed that you didn't even address my points, you just waved them away!Well… I guess that about does it!

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.)

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?