Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Wednesday rejected Ang Ladlad for party-list accreditation on the grounds that the party advocates "sexual immorality" and "immoral doctrines."
In a ruling dated November 11, the Comelec said that although the party presented proper documents and evidence for their accreditation, their petition is "dismissable on moral grounds."
Page 5 of the ruling states that Ang Ladlad's definition of the LGBT sector as a marginalized sector who are disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation "makes it crystal clear that the petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."
The document quotes passages from both the Bible and the Koran (taken from internet site www.bible.org) that describe homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive."
The Comelec goes on to state that accrediting Ang Ladlad would pose risks for Filipino youth.
"Should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith," the ruling stated.
Since when did the Comelec become a moral arbiter?
I think this is a very unfair decision because the Comelec thinks that homosexuality is immoral (of course, based on the Holy Books written looooong ago). They should respect the separation of Church and State! They think that homosexuality is about orgies, drug use, violence, man to man sex, threat to the youth and what not. They killed the straw man here. Homosexuality or being gay is not really about these things. And it is not really immoral (unless of course they hurt others). Does being gay in general can hurt another? Of course not. The Comelec should not judge gays or anyone as immoral based on what they are or based on ancient books but based on their actions and/or cause. It does not mean that they are gay they are already criminals or threat or that they hurt others or immoral. I do not really see any hate nor threat in homosexuality. Gays are just persons (same sex) loving each other.
This is bigotry.
BTW and FYI, I am not gay :) I am very very very (repeated for emphasis) straight. This decision of Comelec just pissed me off.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Heck, why don't they just give the credit to those who really deserve it?
Here goes nothing..
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Do we really have free will?
I have been thinking about free will and determinism for quite some time. A few months back, I believed that men have free will and that men have control to its choices, decisions, and actions. But just recently, I read a couple of articles and arguments that shows that we do not have free will and that free will is just an illusion. I think (as of the moment) that we (men) do not have free will, we do not have control to our choices, and that we just think that we have free will (thus an illusion). I am not really a hundred percent certain about this because I am still in the process of learning about free will and determinism but let me just show you as to why I (for the moment) do not believe in free will. The point of this post is to simply show that our decisions, choices, and actions are not really 'free' at all.
There are two reasons why I believe that we do not have free will. Causality and chance. We end up choosing an option because of these two or a combination of these two. And both causality (cause and effect) and chance (random) shows that we do not have control to our choices.
Let's say I am walking from my work to my house one afternoon. Before I can arrive at my house I have to either pass one of two streets, Street A or Street B. I can arrive at my house in 25 minutes if I will take Street A and Street A is not that safe. On the other hand if I will take on Street B I will arrive at my house for only 10 minutes and it is much safer than Street A. Street B is nearer and a much safer course than Street A so I took Street B. I took Street B because of of the said reason and this reason (cause) led me to take Street B. As you can see, this decision is not really "free" because it is determined by an external force (the danger in taking Street A). This external force is called a determinant, or something that has a role in causing, or determining an outcome. A determinant could also be internal (genetics/biological).
But what if one afternoon I took on Street A for no particular reason whatsoever (random). Would this scenario tell me that I have free will? No. It is because this chain of purely 'random' event is, by definition, not really controlled. If it is, then it would not be random. Even a combination of causes and a random event or random events and cause/s still do not show that choices are 'free' because we cannot control chance and causality.
All in all, our choices are determined by determinants (external or internal force) or by chance. These two reasons led me to believe (right now) that we do not have free will.
Objections and criticisms are welcome.