Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:15 pm

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:08 am
Posts: 14938
Location: Terra; Gaia ; Ar-i-du
IS HOMOSEXUALITY IMMORAL?

Opening Statement - Affirmative (Paktokyo, rizalincarnate)
Opening Statement - Negative (doubleblade29)

Rebuttal to Negative Opening Statement
Rebuttal to Affirmative Opening Statement

Q&A
part 1
Affirmative Questions Negative (limit 3 question)
Negative Replies

Affirmative comments on Negative Answer
Negative Counters affirmative Comments

part 2
Negative Questions affirmative(limit 3 question)
Affirmative Replies

Negative comments on Affirmative Answer
Affirmative Counters Negative Comments


Conclusion:

Affirmative Closing Statement
Negative Closing Statement


Rules

Rules maximum of 2,500 words in opening and closing statement.
Each should reply within 1 week after each post, excluding weekends.
Maximum of 1,000 words in question and answer portion
No personal attack, post should be in English/Filipino.
Only participants /moderator will post.
Copy pasted texts should not be more than 50% of the whole post/reply/answer

definition :
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immoral

immoral (ɪˈmɒrəl)
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules;

_________________
“You create your own universe as you go along.” ― Winston Churchill

"When a table is normalized, the non-key columns depend on the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key." - a DBA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:08 am
Posts: 14938
Location: Terra; Gaia ; Ar-i-du
Affirmative can now post their

Opening Statement

when ready

_________________
“You create your own universe as you go along.” ― Winston Churchill

"When a table is normalized, the non-key columns depend on the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key." - a DBA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:24 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
Paktokyo's openning statement:


Few days ago, while having lunch at the office, I was sitting across a fellow Filipino. She is a trans-gender. Back in Philippines she is known as Virginia. Here, she opted to be called Alex. We are yosi-mates and we share some stories from time to time while inhaling nicotine. I asked her.

“Without considering how we two look at it, ang society ba ay itinuturing na immoral ang homosexuality?”

Her eyes wide open and voice raised, she blurted, “Grabe! OO naman.”

She continued, “Kung sa Pilipinas grabe sila, dito (Western Country) mas grabe pa kamo. Akala mo mas conservative sa atin pero mas judgemental sila dito.”

Going back to the topic at hand… “Is homosexuality immoral?”. Before I proceed and defend my PRO stand, let me direct you to

http://instituteoftranspersonalcoaching.com.au/ethics/

Here it says

Descriptive and normative
In its descriptive sense, “morality” refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.

In its normative sense, “morality” refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.


Above states that, morality in its descriptive sense DOES NOT CONNOTE objective claim. While the normative sense refers to what is actually right or wrong. Former CARE LESS if the act is ACTUALLY right or not. All it care about is what is ACCEPTED. The latter goes the opposite. In normative sense, the act has to be either actually wrong or not.

Now, for me and Doubleblade, we agreed that the definition of immoral was “transgressing ACCEPTED moral values.” The keyword here is “accepted”. We did not define immoral as merely “transgressing moral values”. The word “ACCEPTED” was included. We two then have agreed that we define “IMMORALITY” in its descriptive sense. To put forth in the discussion if homosexuality is ACTUALLY right or wrong is impertinent, irrelevant, or out of topic. Hence, allow me to pound on what we have agreed upon.

Consider the Geocentric model, then it was theorized that the Sun revolves around the earth. That theory started to become popular 4th-6th century BC. Now I pose the question:

“In 6th century BC, was the Sun revolving around Earth?” Answer would be, No! Because even at that time, it is the Earth that was revolving around the Sun.

Now I rephrase the question.

“In 6th century BC, was it ACCEPTED that the Sun was revolving around Earth?” Answer would be YES!!!

Having said all that, today, is homosexuality transgressing ACCEPTED moral values?

Let us start in the case of Philippine society. Come on. The very reason Doubleblade backed out from the first debate entitled “In Pinoy society, is homosexuality immoral” is because it is an unwinnable debate for him. Philippine society is very conservative. Philippine society ACCEPTS that homosexuality is immoral, full stop.

Now we go to other parts of Asia, then Africa. According to

http://www.theinfolist.com/php/SummaryG ... gay_rights

“As of July 2015, seventy two countries as well as five sub-national jurisdictions have laws criminalizing homosexuality, most of them are located in Asia and Africa.”

There you go. Asia and Africa ACCEPTS that homosexuality is a criminal act. How about in Russia? Putin would kill them himself, guaranteed.

How about in the western world? Well, according to Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

Western countries HAD TO CREATE laws. Now, why is there a need to impose laws? The answer is “Because a lot of people DO NOT ACCEPT homosexuality.”.

(Refer to the maps in the link aforementioned for more information.)

Anyway, apart from Virginia (AKA, Alex), I also asked two people. One is a Leftist, a Migrante member, but foremost, a Gabriela member. Her name is Libay. Another one is a Catholic, his name is Ceil. To Libay and Ceil I asked the same question I asked to Alex.

Ceil, the Catholic, replied, “I do not condemn the person, but I consider, in the strongest sense, homosexuality as immoral.”

Libay, the Leftist, articulated, “We have not progressed enough to respect the rights of homosexuals. Sadly, our society at this moment still sees homosexuality as immoral.”

By way of interviews from the Left (Gabriela), Center (Trans-gender), and Right (Catholic), I have presented that, in present time, HOMOSEXUALITY is NOT ACCEPTED. By way of the Global LGBT Rights Maps in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

Russia and most countries in Asia and Africa DO NOT ACCEPT it as well. Western countries NEEDED to pass laws just because homosexuals are DISCRIMINATED.

A debate is bound by rules. Without rules there is chaos. The premise for this debate is that… immorality is defined by the two antagonists as “transgressing ACCEPTED moral values”. Clearly, it is a FACT that

“Homosexuality is transgressing ACCEPTED moral values.”

----------------
Napaaga ang post. Manonood pa ako ng Tennis. :p

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:48 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
Erratum:

transgressing ACCEPTED moral values, change to
transgressing ACCEPTED moral rules

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:52 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1116
Location: In exile
Majority Rules
Is homosexuality immoral? It depends on what you generally do or practice as a homosexual. A gay who married a woman and led a normal life as father to his children but did not practice perversions attributed to gays cannot be branded as immoral. Immorality is relative and what is immoral to some may not be so to others. It also depends on the affected/offended person's sense of morality. But who are the persons who can determine that certain acts or perversions are immoral or not? Consider, for example, anal sex (sodomy) common to gays (some heterosexuals practice them too). Those practicing such perversion are generally considered as immoral. I say generally because anything contentious such as immorality is normally determined by the majority. Since time immemorial, the majority has had the power to decide whom it wants to lead or govern them, unless a perversion occurred to usurp that power from them by force, such as a coup d'etat and other forcible overthrow of the duly elected government. In a democracy, the minority abides by the decision of the majority. In a normal society of normal men and women, the majority determines if certain acts are offensive or not. Thus, because it is common knowledge that most gays practice abominable acts, most particularly sodomy and oral sex, people in general came to abhor homosexuality and those practicing it as immoral, along with other immoral sins like adultery. And proof that majority of the people still abhors these kinds of perversion is obvious as laws favoring gays are still being opposed in most countries.

Perversion is immoral
But why is sexual perversion immoral? Why can't we just call it innovative or unique? It is because it offends the sensibilities of a normal person who witnesses it. It goes against the nature of things. It is unhealthy and could be the cause of serious illness like AIDS and is devoid of human decency. A wife who caught her husband sodomizing another woman would probably exclaim, 'You swine!' (Ang bababoy nyo!) in reference to animals known to be dirty or despicable. If she caught him doing the same act with another man, that would surely be much more detestable and painful to bear. Anal sex or sodomy is perversion and it is abominable and immoral.

History
In the beginning, there were only male and female. They were normal so they were able to reproduce and multiply. Imagine if there were only gays and lesbians in those days, then most probably we wouldn't be here to argue about them. After they had multiplied, certainly there appeared mutants and wierdos from among them: Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, you name it. Even the Bible cited instances of their existence, but I won't expound about them here to be fair and objective. Gays may have felt differently then, but even so, some lived like normal men, married women and raised families. I have come across some of them in the province. hey would have probably wanted to mate with the same sex but society would probably kill them if they did. We can still be grateful to those gays for suppressing their true feelings and abided by the morality dictated by society, and for good reason: Immorality such as prostitution, adultery, even heresy (remember Rizal>), and you got it, SODOMY, were all punishable by death. In our present time, most of these crimes against morality are no longer punished by death and some, like prostitution, had been legalized in some countries. How times have changed! But fortunately for us, what has not changed is the fact that there are still more sane and rational people than perverse ones! They are the ones who determine morality or the lack of it, in society. We normal beings are still offended by these perverse acts by gays and consider them immoral. Who wouldn't be, unless you are gay or a pervert yourself" Imagine sticking a very sensitive organ into a very dirty place and letting millions, nay, billions of sperm drown in a sea of feces!

Parents abhor gay
It is a fact that society has frowned upon homosexuality since olden times for the simple reason that it was deemed abnormal and degraded the image of men who are supposed to be strong and able to procreate. The truth of this fact has been carried on until the present time where homosexuality is still considered taboo in most parts of the world. A father who has a son would probably be devastated the moment he discovered his son to be gay. Gays, in turn, were afraid to reveal their true selves to their fathers or parents for they knew that they could not take the disappointment from such a revelation. That's how abnormal it was at the beginning. But even there are more gays now and more and more people are becoming tolerant of their ways, it doesn't change the fact that they practice sexual perversion. For how can two same sex people do it other than through perversion?

The world mostly abhor perversion and immorality
Homosexuality is considered immoral mainly because it is common knowledge that gays engage in anal sex or sodomy, not to mention oral sex, as a way of life, which society finds abominable. Heterosexuals who engage in similar activities are also deemed perverts so they are lumped collectively as immoral. Sodomy is a major crime in Malaysia where a prominent politician was once indicted for the offense. In Russia, gays are banned. A U.S. president was impeached a few years back due to for letting a woman do a perverted act on him in his office. What more if it was a gay who was doing it for him? By this, society has not really accepted homosexual behavior as a normal way of life but rather something that is detestable and abominable. Gays may have been accepted in our society today, but it is their detestable sexual practices, not their gender, that drive people to judge them as immoral.

Legal is not moral
Something that is moral is synonymous to something that is right. The opposite which is immoral is therefore that which is wrong or unacceptable in our society. Conversely, unacceptable behaviors can never be considered moral, for the simple reason that they are offensive to society in general. Even though same-sex marriage had been legalized in some countries, it does not change the fact that their sexual acts are still abnormally wrong. If society has become tolerant of such abnormality now, it's because people have gotten used to it or resigned to eventuality. Even in a land of gays where everybody approves of such perversion, it does not make it morally right for the simple reason that it is a perversion and unnatural. Gays and their supporters merely lost their decency and their sense of morality. The law may someday favor other groups with similar agenda, like those who practices necrophilia or bestiality because politicians pander to them for their votes, but there would surely be strong opposition from the sane majority and it would take some time before certain laws legalizing them could be passed, just as it took some time to pass laws on divorce, abortion, and prostitution. These laws are still viewed as immoral by society in general, particularly in Christian countries.

Politicians abet perversion
Some of the laws contrary to morality had been passed because politicians pander to these groups for their support during elections, not because they approve of their perverse ways. Some politicians are probably gays themselves or are being sponsored by gays. Gays have proliferated in various sectors of society that more and more gays have come out of the closet. Prominent celebrities are no longer ashamed to reveal their true selves. Since most politicians are immoral themselves, it is probably their way of alleviating the prick of conscience by giving in to the demands of these groups. 'I am immoral and corrupt myself, so it would be hypocrisy if I don't allow them to do as they please. Besides, they are supporting my candidacy and have contributed to my campaign fund' or something to that effect. As a result, gays nowadays even have the gall to have their perversion legalized through same-sex marriage. Gone were the days when gays were ashamed to reveal themselves. Now, they even parade themselves and shout to the whole world how proud they are of their gender! In a way, nudists are better because they hide from public view and go to some secluded beaches to do their thing. Some gays, however, like a popular TV host, even simulated sexual perversion with one of his audience in front of a camera for all to see! He is the same TV host who raised a howl when Manny described perverts as 'worse than animals'.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:02 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Posts: 6930
Location: exactly where i should be....
Good day to you, paclanders.

Is homosexuality immoral?

Before you answer this question yourself, let us first try to "empty our cup". This means, we start with a clean slate, like a baby just starting to understand things around him. But why is this important? Because by getting rid of our ingrained bias towards homosexuals, even for just the duration of this debate, we are putting ourselves in a position where we can be receptive of ideas we would readily dismiss normally just because it contradicts our belief. This goes for both pros and cons. Let the arguments to be presented here be the sole basis of our judgement (for this debate) and not our own preconceived notions.


As seen in the opening post, immorality can be defined as: TRANSGRESSING ACCEPTED MORAL RULES

Notice that i put them out entirely in all caps. Because that is how it should be. My opponent Paks created an illusion that he is actually making sense in his arguments by capitalizing the word "accepted" in conjunction with his premises. But what is clear here is, we are NOT debating whether homosexuality is accepted by the MAJORITY (another issue i would tackle later on) or not, but whether it is immoral or not!

Rizalinc on the other hand, did a better job on building his case by enumerating the reasons why he think it is immoral. But he, and paks as well, committed a blatant logical fallacy in his very first argument-- ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM, or appeal to public opinion. What makes their statements fallacious? Well, not because more people share that belief, it means it is RIGHT. "Majority rules" does not equate to "majority is right"! The majority of the Filipinos elected Erap. Did they turn out to be right?

That morality is subjective is a given. So to come up with something to support my stand, in accordance with the agreed definition, i had to think of an ACCEPTED MORAL RULE which i believe transcends known boundaries like religion, time, culture, age, nationality, skin color et al. And what better rule could there be than the GOLDEN RULE!

"DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU."

Of course there are other moral rules, let me name a few.

Respect others
Be honest
Be loyal
Do not cheat
Do not judge
Be tolerant of differences

For the Christians, the moral authority is God. There's the 10 Commandments most Christians base their conduct from. As for the other religions, feel free to Google.

Of all these, it is evident the GOLDEN RULE encompasses almost everything, except of course those that are directed to certain specific group of people. Heck, it wouldn't be called Golden for nothing. With this in mind, and once again setting aside our personal, preconceived biases, can we honestly say homosexuality is immoral?

Growing up a Christian, in a society that reeks of machismo, I used to believe it is. But realizing things are not always like we are told, and there are more colors to this world than just black and white, i have now come up to the conclusion that, come to think of it, it is NOT. As to why and how i come up with this realization, i shall share more as the discourse continues.

_________________

It takes forever to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:02 am 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
Mod ML,

It is a known fact that morality can be defined either in its descriptive form or normative form.

In its descriptive form, it does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong.

In its normative form, morality” refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong.

Before we started this debate, we agreed to define immoral as


1. transgressing accepted moral rules

It is crystal clear that we ought to debate on the morality of homosexuality within the 'descriptive' context.

DB himself said...

'..there are more colors to this world than just black and white...'

That is true, even to moral rules. You can have 'Right' moral, 'Wrong' moral, which fall under the normative form. Or 'accepted' moral, which falls under descriptive form. If we want to discuss right and wrong moral, we then have to change the agreed meaning of 'immoral' with the third option in the link you provided

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immoral

which is

unscrupulous or unethical:

DB is basing his arguments on what is 'right' which falls under the context of normative sense of morality.

(DB:Well, not because more people share that belief, it means it is RIGHT.)

Lest we go out of topic, kindly make a ruling.

Should we base the meaning of the word immoral to

'transgressing accepted moral rules'

Or

'Unscrupulous or unethical'?

Thank you.

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:36 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Posts: 6930
Location: exactly where i should be....
Paks, looks like you have a vague understanding of what descriptive and normative definitions of Morality are. I don't blame you, the link you provided has an indeed vague explanation on what the two terms actually mean. Here, have a read of a clearer explanation of what is descriptive and what is normative morality, how are they different, complete with examples. Read the whole article, it cannot be any clearer.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

_________________

It takes forever to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:27 am 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
Matagal ko ng nabasa yang link na yan DB. Alam ko na dati pa ang normative at descriptive. In your case, pede ka mag thank you sa akin at ngayun alam mo na.

Mod, paki delete yung last post ni DB. Right before this, NOT his openning statement. He should comply to the sequence that you detailed or he can address you, the moderator, to seek guidance... Which I did.

Paki delete din tong post na to after you have read.

Thank you.

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:25 am 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1116
Location: In exile
doubleblade29 wrote:
Good day to you, paclanders.

Is homosexuality immoral?

Before you answer this question yourself, let us first try to "empty our cup". This means, we start with a clean slate, like a baby just starting to understand things around him. But why is this important? Because by getting rid of our ingrained bias towards homosexuals, even for just the duration of this debate, we are putting ourselves in a position where we can be receptive of ideas we would readily dismiss normally just because it contradicts our belief. This goes for both pros and cons. Let the arguments to be presented here be the sole basis of our judgement (for this debate) and not our own preconceived notions.


As seen in the opening post, immorality can be defined as: TRANSGRESSING ACCEPTED MORAL RULES

Notice that i put them out entirely in all caps. Because that is how it should be. My opponent Paks created an illusion that he is actually making sense in his arguments by capitalizing the word "accepted" in conjunction with his premises. But what is clear here is, we are NOT debating whether homosexuality is accepted by the MAJORITY (another issue i would tackle later on) or not, but whether it is immoral or not!

Rizalinc on the other hand, did a better job on building his case by enumerating the reasons why he think it is immoral. But he, and paks as well, committed a blatant logical fallacy in his very first argument-- ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM, or appeal to public opinion. What makes their statements fallacious? Well, not because more people share that belief, it means it is RIGHT. "Majority rules" does not equate to "majority is right"! The majority of the Filipinos elected Erap. Did they turn out to be right?

That morality is subjective is a given. So to come up with something to support my stand, in accordance with the agreed definition, i had to think of an ACCEPTED MORAL RULE which i believe transcends known boundaries like religion, time, culture, age, nationality, skin color et al. And what better rule could there be than the GOLDEN RULE!

"DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU."

Of course there are other moral rules, let me name a few.

Respect others
Be honest
Be loyal
Do not cheat
Do not judge
Be tolerant of differences

For the Christians, the moral authority is God. There's the 10 Commandments most Christians base their conduct from. As for the other religions, feel free to Google.

Of all these, it is evident the GOLDEN RULE encompasses almost everything, except of course those that are directed to certain specific group of people. Heck, it wouldn't be called Golden for nothing. With this in mind, and once again setting aside our personal, preconceived biases, can we honestly say homosexuality is immoral?

Growing up a Christian, in a society that reeks of machismo, I used to believe it is. But realizing things are not always like we are told, and there are more colors to this world than just black and white, i have now come up to the conclusion that, come to think of it, it is NOT. As to why and how i come up with this realization, i shall share more as the discourse continues.



First of all, your assertion that Erap was elected by the majority of Filipinos is a fallacy. He was a majority president, but not elected by the majority. If elections are conducted by knockout format like that being used in singing contests like The Voice wherein contestants are ultimately reduced to just 2, that is, the champion and the challenger, then he could have been elected by the majority (if he wins, otherwise it would be his opponent). But if we add all the votes from the other presidential candidates, it is obvious that the sum was more than the votes garnered by Erap, which means majority of Filipinos did not vote for him. That's the truth. And even if the knockout format was used, that would not mean that majority of Filipinos really voted for him but only because voters would be forced to choose between two candidates. And even granting that Erap obtained the majority votes by that format, the sum of those who did not vote for him could still be more than what he garnered if we consider those who did not vote for some reasons.

Your assertion that the 'majority is not always right' is correct. But then, the majority decides, not the minority. But in the case of gay morality, the majority is right because doing something perverse, disgusting or unnatural is wrong. And gay sex is perversion because, as Manny said, 'common sense'. You cannot use a 'drinking cup' as your toilet. That's simply wrong or disgusting and offends the sensibilities of others.

Next, I have avoided quoting the Bible in my argument because some people are not Christians or believers and also to be more objective, but you quoted the 'Golden Rule' which Christ commanded. I enclosed it in quotations because you are again mistaken about the Golden Rule made by man. Actually, it was 'Do not do unto others what you would not want others do unto you' or something to that effect. The Golden Rule was negative (probably copied from the Bible but simply reversed), Christ's teaching was proactive.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:38 am 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
Ok... While waiting for Mod ML's response, here is my rebuttal to DB's openning statement.

Your openning statement is out of topic, irrelevant, and impertinent.

We have defined 'immoral: transgressing accepted moral rules'.
Instead, you want to change the meaning to 'immoral: unscrupulos or unethical'.

The title of the debate is 'Is homosexuality immoral?' which is synonymous to 'Is homosexuality transgressing accepted moral rules?'.

The agreed topic is not 'Is homosexuality unethical?'

We are discussing if homosexuality is accepted or not.
We are not discussing if homosexuality is unethical or not.

I urge DB to stay with the topic.

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:18 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Posts: 6930
Location: exactly where i should be....
paktokyo wrote:
Paktokyo's openning statement:


Few days ago, while having lunch at the office, I was sitting across a fellow Filipino. She is a trans-gender. Back in Philippines she is known as Virginia. Here, she opted to be called Alex. We are yosi-mates and we share some stories from time to time while inhaling nicotine. I asked her.

“Without considering how we two look at it, ang society ba ay itinuturing na immoral ang homosexuality?”

Her eyes wide open and voice raised, she blurted, “Grabe! OO naman.”

She continued, “Kung sa Pilipinas grabe sila, dito (Western Country) mas grabe pa kamo. Akala mo mas conservative sa atin pero mas judgemental sila dito.”

Going back to the topic at hand… “Is homosexuality immoral?”. Before I proceed and defend my PRO stand, let me direct you to

http://instituteoftranspersonalcoaching.com.au/ethics/

Here it says

Descriptive and normative
In its descriptive sense, “morality” refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.

In its normative sense, “morality” refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.


Above states that, morality in its descriptive sense DOES NOT CONNOTE objective claim. While the normative sense refers to what is actually right or wrong. Former CARE LESS if the act is ACTUALLY right or not. All it care about is what is ACCEPTED. The latter goes the opposite. In normative sense, the act has to be either actually wrong or not.

Now, for me and Doubleblade, we agreed that the definition of immoral was “transgressing ACCEPTED moral values.” The keyword here is “accepted”. We did not define immoral as merely “transgressing moral values”. The word “ACCEPTED” was included. We two then have agreed that we define “IMMORALITY” in its descriptive sense. To put forth in the discussion if homosexuality is ACTUALLY right or wrong is impertinent, irrelevant, or out of topic. Hence, allow me to pound on what we have agreed upon.

Consider the Geocentric model, then it was theorized that the Sun revolves around the earth. That theory started to become popular 4th-6th century BC. Now I pose the question:

“In 6th century BC, was the Sun revolving around Earth?” Answer would be, No! Because even at that time, it is the Earth that was revolving around the Sun.

Now I rephrase the question.

“In 6th century BC, was it ACCEPTED that the Sun was revolving around Earth?” Answer would be YES!!!

Having said all that, today, is homosexuality transgressing ACCEPTED moral values?

Let us start in the case of Philippine society. Come on. The very reason Doubleblade backed out from the first debate entitled “In Pinoy society, is homosexuality immoral” is because it is an unwinnable debate for him. Philippine society is very conservative. Philippine society ACCEPTS that homosexuality is immoral, full stop.

Now we go to other parts of Asia, then Africa. According to

http://www.theinfolist.com/php/SummaryG ... gay_rights

“As of July 2015, seventy two countries as well as five sub-national jurisdictions have laws criminalizing homosexuality, most of them are located in Asia and Africa.”

There you go. Asia and Africa ACCEPTS that homosexuality is a criminal act. How about in Russia? Putin would kill them himself, guaranteed.

How about in the western world? Well, according to Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

Western countries HAD TO CREATE laws. Now, why is there a need to impose laws? The answer is “Because a lot of people DO NOT ACCEPT homosexuality.”.

(Refer to the maps in the link aforementioned for more information.)

Anyway, apart from Virginia (AKA, Alex), I also asked two people. One is a Leftist, a Migrante member, but foremost, a Gabriela member. Her name is Libay. Another one is a Catholic, his name is Ceil. To Libay and Ceil I asked the same question I asked to Alex.

Ceil, the Catholic, replied, “I do not condemn the person, but I consider, in the strongest sense, homosexuality as immoral.”

Libay, the Leftist, articulated, “We have not progressed enough to respect the rights of homosexuals. Sadly, our society at this moment still sees homosexuality as immoral.”

By way of interviews from the Left (Gabriela), Center (Trans-gender), and Right (Catholic), I have presented that, in present time, HOMOSEXUALITY is NOT ACCEPTED. By way of the Global LGBT Rights Maps in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

Russia and most countries in Asia and Africa DO NOT ACCEPT it as well. Western countries NEEDED to pass laws just because homosexuals are DISCRIMINATED.

A debate is bound by rules. Without rules there is chaos. The premise for this debate is that… immorality is defined by the two antagonists as “transgressing ACCEPTED moral values”. Clearly, it is a FACT that

“Homosexuality is transgressing ACCEPTED moral values.”

----------------
Napaaga ang post. Manonood pa ako ng Tennis. :p


^FLAWED. In every sense of the word. I actually do not know where to begin tearing this apart.

First, my opponent CLEARLY do not understand what he has gotten into. He does not even understand what the topic is all about!

He asserted that this topic is about whether homosexuality is ACCEPTED or not, which is obviously, dead wrong. To think sya pa mismo nagbigay ng definition ng IMMORAL na gusto nya gamitin?--TRANSGRESSING ACCEPTED MORAL RULES. This is where his confusion started. Nakakita lang ng ACCEPTED, nalito na. This definition of IMMORAL simply means:

Transgress--to break a law or moral rule (cambridge); to do something that is not allowed (merriam webster)

The other terms are self explanatory. So simply put:

IMMORAL--breaking accepted moral rules.

Could this be any clearer? We are debating whether homosexuality is immoral or not, in the context of that definition he chose.

WHEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOPIC IS FLAWED, EVERYTHING ELSE FOLLOWS. I hate to do this, and this is not ad hominem, but based on my observation and previous exchanges with my opponent paks, I believe he IS NOT CAPABLE of handling this debate and it is A WASTE OF TIME to continue engaging with his arguments anchored on a MISUNDERSTOOD topic.

I advise the moderator to do what is beneficial for everyone concerned.




Nonetheless, a few rebuttals to his post.

My opponent argued his case by starting with a logical fallacy, appeal to anecdote. You don't back up your position by a personal experience. Debate ito, hindi kwentuhan. Kung me kwento ka, me kwento rin ako, me kwento rin si Lola Basyang. Should we turn this into a storytelling battle?

He also committed both argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum, appealing to popular opinion to back up his claim. MAJORITY does not make something right.

For the most part, my opponent went on blabbing about the descriptive and normative definitions of IMMORAL, which is, to be frank about it, not making any sense.

He then went on to present some arguments, all anchored on his FLAWED undestanding of the subject matter. It is also mostly, argumentum ad populum. There is basically nothing to rebut there.

Finally, he once again turn Lola Basyang mode on. Do you guys wanna hear my own story?




Mod Miron, i do not know if you would still allow someone INCOMPETENT and INCAPABLE to continue with this. I am not attacking his personality, i am merely stating the obvious. Personally, we would all be better off with just me and rizalinc. Please do not let this debate turn into a mess.

_________________

It takes forever to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:41 pm 
Offline
Cruiserweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am
Posts: 2567
DB, you said in your openning statement that it is a moral rule to "be tolerant to differences"... Sa mga extremists, do

1. They 'accept that moral rule' or
2. They view other people as infidel and they could just kill them instead... Meaning they do not accept that as moral rule.?

_________________

Pag sinabi ko... Fact yun


Ak ak ak


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:21 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Posts: 6930
Location: exactly where i should be....
rizalincarnate wrote:
Majority Rules
Is homosexuality immoral? It depends on what you generally do or practice as a homosexual. A gay who married a woman and led a normal life as father to his children but did not practice perversions attributed to gays cannot be branded as immoral. Immorality is relative and what is immoral to some may not be so to others. It also depends on the affected/offended person's sense of morality. But who are the persons who can determine that certain acts or perversions are immoral or not? Consider, for example, anal sex (sodomy) common to gays (some heterosexuals practice them too). Those practicing such perversion are generally considered as immoral. I say generally because anything contentious such as immorality is normally determined by the majority. Since time immemorial, the majority has had the power to decide whom it wants to lead or govern them, unless a perversion occurred to usurp that power from them by force, such as a coup d'etat and other forcible overthrow of the duly elected government. In a democracy, the minority abides by the decision of the majority. In a normal society of normal men and women, the majority determines if certain acts are offensive or not. Thus, because it is common knowledge that most gays practice abominable acts, most particularly sodomy and oral sex, people in general came to abhor homosexuality and those practicing it as immoral, along with other immoral sins like adultery. And proof that majority of the people still abhors these kinds of perversion is obvious as laws favoring gays are still being opposed in most countries.

Perversion is immoral
But why is sexual perversion immoral? Why can't we just call it innovative or unique? It is because it offends the sensibilities of a normal person who witnesses it. It goes against the nature of things. It is unhealthy and could be the cause of serious illness like AIDS and is devoid of human decency. A wife who caught her husband sodomizing another woman would probably exclaim, 'You swine!' (Ang bababoy nyo!) in reference to animals known to be dirty or despicable. If she caught him doing the same act with another man, that would surely be much more detestable and painful to bear. Anal sex or sodomy is perversion and it is abominable and immoral.

History
In the beginning, there were only male and female. They were normal so they were able to reproduce and multiply. Imagine if there were only gays and lesbians in those days, then most probably we wouldn't be here to argue about them. After they had multiplied, certainly there appeared mutants and wierdos from among them: Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, you name it. Even the Bible cited instances of their existence, but I won't expound about them here to be fair and objective. Gays may have felt differently then, but even so, some lived like normal men, married women and raised families. I have come across some of them in the province. hey would have probably wanted to mate with the same sex but society would probably kill them if they did. We can still be grateful to those gays for suppressing their true feelings and abided by the morality dictated by society, and for good reason: Immorality such as prostitution, adultery, even heresy (remember Rizal>), and you got it, SODOMY, were all punishable by death. In our present time, most of these crimes against morality are no longer punished by death and some, like prostitution, had been legalized in some countries. How times have changed! But fortunately for us, what has not changed is the fact that there are still more sane and rational people than perverse ones! They are the ones who determine morality or the lack of it, in society. We normal beings are still offended by these perverse acts by gays and consider them immoral. Who wouldn't be, unless you are gay or a pervert yourself" Imagine sticking a very sensitive organ into a very dirty place and letting millions, nay, billions of sperm drown in a sea of feces!

Parents abhor gay
It is a fact that society has frowned upon homosexuality since olden times for the simple reason that it was deemed abnormal and degraded the image of men who are supposed to be strong and able to procreate. The truth of this fact has been carried on until the present time where homosexuality is still considered taboo in most parts of the world. A father who has a son would probably be devastated the moment he discovered his son to be gay. Gays, in turn, were afraid to reveal their true selves to their fathers or parents for they knew that they could not take the disappointment from such a revelation. That's how abnormal it was at the beginning. But even there are more gays now and more and more people are becoming tolerant of their ways, it doesn't change the fact that they practice sexual perversion. For how can two same sex people do it other than through perversion?

The world mostly abhor perversion and immorality
Homosexuality is considered immoral mainly because it is common knowledge that gays engage in anal sex or sodomy, not to mention oral sex, as a way of life, which society finds abominable. Heterosexuals who engage in similar activities are also deemed perverts so they are lumped collectively as immoral. Sodomy is a major crime in Malaysia where a prominent politician was once indicted for the offense. In Russia, gays are banned. A U.S. president was impeached a few years back due to for letting a woman do a perverted act on him in his office. What more if it was a gay who was doing it for him? By this, society has not really accepted homosexual behavior as a normal way of life but rather something that is detestable and abominable. Gays may have been accepted in our society today, but it is their detestable sexual practices, not their gender, that drive people to judge them as immoral.

Legal is not moral
Something that is moral is synonymous to something that is right. The opposite which is immoral is therefore that which is wrong or unacceptable in our society. Conversely, unacceptable behaviors can never be considered moral, for the simple reason that they are offensive to society in general. Even though same-sex marriage had been legalized in some countries, it does not change the fact that their sexual acts are still abnormally wrong. If society has become tolerant of such abnormality now, it's because people have gotten used to it or resigned to eventuality. Even in a land of gays where everybody approves of such perversion, it does not make it morally right for the simple reason that it is a perversion and unnatural. Gays and their supporters merely lost their decency and their sense of morality. The law may someday favor other groups with similar agenda, like those who practices necrophilia or bestiality because politicians pander to them for their votes, but there would surely be strong opposition from the sane majority and it would take some time before certain laws legalizing them could be passed, just as it took some time to pass laws on divorce, abortion, and prostitution. These laws are still viewed as immoral by society in general, particularly in Christian countries.

Politicians abet perversion
Some of the laws contrary to morality had been passed because politicians pander to these groups for their support during elections, not because they approve of their perverse ways. Some politicians are probably gays themselves or are being sponsored by gays. Gays have proliferated in various sectors of society that more and more gays have come out of the closet. Prominent celebrities are no longer ashamed to reveal their true selves. Since most politicians are immoral themselves, it is probably their way of alleviating the prick of conscience by giving in to the demands of these groups. 'I am immoral and corrupt myself, so it would be hypocrisy if I don't allow them to do as they please. Besides, they are supporting my candidacy and have contributed to my campaign fund' or something to that effect. As a result, gays nowadays even have the gall to have their perversion legalized through same-sex marriage. Gone were the days when gays were ashamed to reveal themselves. Now, they even parade themselves and shout to the whole world how proud they are of their gender! In a way, nudists are better because they hide from public view and go to some secluded beaches to do their thing. Some gays, however, like a popular TV host, even simulated sexual perversion with one of his audience in front of a camera for all to see! He is the same TV host who raised a howl when Manny described perverts as 'worse than animals'.





My opponent's post is practically composed of two main arguments:

1. Homosexuality is immoral because it is not accepted by the majority.
2. Homosexuality is immoral because SOME/MOST homosexuals practice sexual acts that, in his opinion, are sexual PERVERSIONS.


I have already called out number one being fallacious, and he acknowledged it, albeit he was quick to point out my example was inaccurate. Then again, he agreed that MAJORITY DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. He went on to add a caveat that majority gets to decide though. But getting to decide and being right are not in any way synonymous.

But for the sake of argument, allow me to dispute what he, and paks, presented. If we are to base homosexuality's morality in the premise that it should be accepted by the society, then we are on a great divide. Take note that this is just for argument's sake, i do not intend to commit a logical fallacy myself and weaken my stance in this discourse. For technical reasons, i might post in parts for this rebuttal if i decide to post more links than one. Changing tabs in this tablet erases my typed reply here in pacland, so i could only post 1 link in every post.

(Link on my next post)

_________________

It takes forever to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:28 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Posts: 6930
Location: exactly where i should be....
There is actually an astounding division in worldwide acceptance of homosexuals, contrary to what my opponents are trying to imply. They could fool the gullible, but not the informed. And to paks would be surprise, he is dead wrong in asserting homosexuality is not accepted in the Philippine society! A whooping 73% ACCEPTS homosexuality in the Philippines!

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/glo ... sexuality/

(another link in my next post)

_________________

It takes forever to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group