MERGED: Gay Marriage in the Philippines

[high_heels]

---

And there you have it, the root cause of this issue. You treat Homosexuals as second class citizens and that they should not be afforded the rights that you enjoy. Thanks for making that very crystal clear

You may not realize it but you just validated my point why marriage equality should be legalized

Cheers!

Who the hell told you that I am treating homosexuals as second class? Don't you know assumptions are the mother of all "f@ck ups!" And mind you my gay friend....you are obviously assuming that me and society is treating you as a second class. You yourself is allowing the homosexual community to be treated less by assuming that the entire world treats you as such!

You've been allowed to do whatever it is you want to be doing. Dress like women, kiss each other in public, have a same *** relationship, have the same legal rights as everyone else, and the right to live a life! WHAT IS CLEAR HERE IS YOU INSIST ON HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THE UNACCEPTABLE BOTH BY RELIGION AND BY LAW.


Validate your point? With what? that simply because we are against it you should insist on same *** marriage? Oh wow! You are shrouded with flawed idealism!

[Cascada]

@Dustashed

high_heels will toast you in any Debate about this topic. youre one of those "have it my way" kind of people. anyway i admire your reasoning its born out of desperation and dedication.

[tingkagol]

You've been allowed to do whatever it is you want to be doing. Dress like women, kiss each other in public, have a same *** relationship, have the same legal rights as everyone else, and the right to live a life! WHAT IS CLEAR HERE IS YOU INSIST ON HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THE UNACCEPTABLE BOTH BY RELIGION AND BY LAW.

As for religion, not much else can be done there. Christian dogma will always be against same-s3x marriage. So it is written. (1)

The law, however, can be changed - by no less than the people in a democracy. "Unacceptable" by the majority now, yes, but just like a lot of things were "unacceptable" back then.

I think the problem here is that some people base morality off what is deemed "acceptable" by the majority. If it is "unacceptable", it is wrong - which is a fallacy (Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). For example, slavery is immoral because it infringes on the freedoms of those unlucky enough to be slaves, but a century ago it was acceptable. That is why acceptability, the consensus, and popularity absolutely have no bearing whatsoever in determining whether something is right or wrong.

So what is clear here is you need to understand that what the majority disagrees with, like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong. You actually need to explain why it is immoral besides saying "because it is unacceptable". There are a variety of ways to do so, like saying it's unnatural, which in itself is also a fallacy (Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So far, I've yet to come across a valid argument on why it is immoral.

That said, it is okay to find something unacceptable. Just be cautious about completely dismissing it as "wrong" solely because of that.

[high_heels]

As for religion, not much else can be done there. Christian dogma will always be against same-s3x marriage. So it is written. (1)

The law, however, can be changed - by no less than the people in a democracy. "Unacceptable" by the majority now, yes, but just like a lot of things were "unacceptable" back then.

I think the problem here is that some people base morality off what is deemed "acceptable" by the majority. If it is "unacceptable", it is wrong - which is a fallacy (Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). For example, slavery is immoral because it infringes on the freedoms of those unlucky enough to be slaves, but a century ago it was acceptable. That is why acceptability, the consensus, and popularity absolutely have no bearing whatsoever in determining whether something is right or wrong.

So what is clear here is you need to understand that what the majority disagrees with, like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong. You actually need to explain why it is immoral besides saying "because it is unacceptable". There are a variety of ways to do so, like saying it's unnatural, which in itself is also a fallacy (Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So far, I've yet to come across a valid argument on why it is immoral.

I am absolutely laughing my butt out with what you said!!!! hahahahahaa....... To quote you

"So what is clear here is you need to understand that what the majority disagrees with, like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong." <------ and same s@x marriage is RIGHT? wow! There is really a PINK elephant in the room! hahahahaha....... "not automatically wrong?" oh right!!! thats why its not "automatically wrong" kay you are INSISTING for everyone to accept it as right? So by context, di pa siya automatically right! wahahahhaa....... sorry but this is just one f@cked up line!

word for the night "like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong"

[Renz8]

Kung morality ang issue ani then why man kaha in biblical times mag unay ra man ang mga tao?

[tingkagol]

I am absolutely laughing my butt out with what you said!!!! hahahahahaa....... To quote you

"So what is clear here is you need to understand that what the majority disagrees with, like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong." <------ and same s@x marriage is RIGHT? wow! There is really a PINK elephant in the room! hahahahaha....... "not automatically wrong?" oh right!!! thats why its not "automatically wrong" kay you are INSISTING for everyone to accept it as right? So by context, di pa siya automatically right! wahahahhaa....... sorry but this is just one f@cked up line!

word for the night "like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong"

Exactly. ^_^

I'm not saying it's automatically right either. That's the point. You cannot conclude something is "right" or "wrong" simply by gauging its popularity. Pink elephants tell you nothing, other than it is odd, unpopular, unnatural - but never "right" or "wrong".

Killing innocent people is unpopular, but it is wrong because it deprives a person's right to live.
Slavery was popular, but it was and is wrong because it deprives a person's right to freedom.

And finally:

Gay marriage is unpopular, but it is wrong because _________________________

1. It's unnatural?
2. It's unpopular?
3. It destroys the traditional meaning of marriage?
4. It's against christian morals? (1)

(note that it never causes suffering nor infringes on the rights of others)

Instead I'm inclined to say: Gay marriage is unpopular, but it is right because it grants equal rights to both the heterosexual and homosexual population.


Popularity/unpopularity have absolutely no bearing in telling that something is "right" or "wrong".

[SioDenz]

Kung morality ang issue ani then why man kaha in biblical times mag unay ra man ang mga tao?

What Biblical times? New Testament Times? can you post some verse on the New testament nga nag Legalize sa Sodomy, or Incest, or even Adultery?

Ang mga Immoral naa nah na sila sa una pa, mao bitaw nianhi jud si Kristo para pagsangyaw nga sala na sila.

[Renz8]

I did not say that the bible legalize sodomy,incest or adultery It was merely a time line besides the bible is just a book not a law but incest during those times was common but why are they tolerated during those times I'm merely asking

[3nZ0y]

If consent should be the only basis for legalizing marriage then:

A brother and sister could both be consenting parties in a contract of marriage.

The first sentence is false na daan.

Yes, you are right that a brother and sister may be consenting parties. Your point?

So could a child and an adult.

Quick question: can a child decide for himself and give his consent? Hint: statutory rape
spoiler: He said consenting ADULTS.

Same goes for the mentally retarded.

Refer above.

But why are these unions unrecognized and even banned by law?

It's not all about consent. The state has an interest in preventing such unions.

Yes, it is NOT all about consent and these are currently banned. Mao ganeh naay proposed bill. To show that while this is not recognized today, there is enough reason why it must be recognized by the state.

Same goes for marriage between homos. I would definitely say that marriage between two mentally incapacitated people is no different from two homosexuals who wish to do the same. Not exactly your "apples and oranges" argument. More like different animals, same beast.

Yes, because comparing the mentally incapacitated people with homo is like comparing apple with apple. Because the homos cannot be good parents, cannot provide the needs of their children, cannot fulfill their responsibilities as parents. Very logical.

Who the hell told you that I am treating homosexuals as second class? Don't you know assumptions are the mother of all "f@ck ups!" And mind you my gay friend....you are obviously assuming that me and society is treating you as a second class. You yourself is allowing the homosexual community to be treated less by assuming that the entire world treats you as such!

You've been allowed to do whatever it is you want to be doing. Dress like women, kiss each other in public, have a same *** relationship, have the same legal rights as everyone else, and the right to live a life! WHAT IS CLEAR HERE IS YOU INSIST ON HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THE UNACCEPTABLE BOTH BY RELIGION AND BY LAW.

You don't treat homos as second class citizens but you likened them with pink elephants [that is not normal for you.] What is the difference? If you don't understand this, then look at the post of trollolol. He likened gays with mentally incapacitated individuals and you are no different. It was just you decided to liken them with something else.

Validate your point? With what? that simply because we are against it you should insist on same *** marriage? Oh wow! You are shrouded with flawed idealism!

Yes, validate his point that you are shrouded with flawed logic. Ka-klaro atong iyahang gi-mention: marriage equality

If you don't treat gays as equal, then they must have the same rights as you do. Don't you agree?

I am absolutely laughing my butt out with what you said!!!! hahahahahaa....... To quote you

"So what is clear here is you need to understand that what the majority disagrees with, like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong." <------ and same s@x marriage is RIGHT? wow! There is really a PINK elephant in the room! hahahahaha....... "not automatically wrong?" oh right!!! thats why its not "automatically wrong" kay you are INSISTING for everyone to accept it as right? So by context, di pa siya automatically right! wahahahhaa....... sorry but this is just one f@cked up line!

word for the night "like gay marriage, doesn't make it automatically wrong"

I hope you still have your butt after laughing it OUT.

[SioDenz]

I did not say that the bible legalize sodomy,incest or adultery It was merely a time line besides the bible is just a book not a law but incest during those times was common but I why are they tolerated during those times I'm merely asking

Wa na sila gi tolerate, maoy naandan kay wa paman silay knowledge if unsay makaayu nila or dili. Kanang mga immoralidad nabuhat nila bunga na sa Freewill nga ilang gi exercise, gikalimtan ang sugo sa Ginoo ug Gibuhat if unsay para nila sakto. Mao nga Gipada sa Ginoo iyang anak nga si Kristo para pag remind sa katawhan sa pagkinabuhi nga tarung.

Thats why if you read the OLD and New testament daghan ka makita dha nga mga practices nga gipang usab sa New kay dili na applicable sa mga new generations.