- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 3,063
- Reaction
- 1,294
- Points
- 1,025
Ganito. I have my opinions against SOGIE bill. I think it is because I was raised in conservative. And I don't accept that reasoning to be intellectual so I gave SoGIE a chance. Pinakinggan ko ang interview kay Etta Rosales, who is considered the mother of the SOGIE Bill. She might have answers that will make me at ease with this Bill. I plan to switch side on this topic if I find it compelling.
Here is the interview.
The interviewer asked about the possible conflict of the SOGIE bill to existing laws on religious freedom, like compelling an all-girls-school to accept boy or vice versa..
Napaka-convuluted ng sagot ni Etta. She started about stating the obvious that we must follow what is already a law, ignoring the fact na kaya nga ito pinag-uusapan dahil ayaw ng mga tao maging law ang bill na ito.
Then she states "that is when your religious belief becomes questionable" while still failing to answer the scenario tackling the questionability of "their" belief.
Then her answers becomes so confused on communicating what she means, and as a listener I dont even get anymore what she means when she says "biological girl/boy".
Honestly, napakalabo ng sagot nya dito, where the question is simply asking about the conflict with religious rights. Failed answer IMHO.
Now the interviewer address the issue on transgender in women sports, citing the example of Fallon Fox bashing the head of his* opponent who is a biological female in MMA(mixed martial arts).
Etta answers this by saying anyone should not bash heads regardless of gender (what?!) She sounded like she does not understand the concept of combat sports. She even proposes to "seperate" the participants according to "strength" because we separate them anyway by height and weight. But how do you do that? Aren't they competing in the sports to prove exactly who is stronger?
And when given the example: Lebron James joining the Womens' division she then says "hindi naman pwede iyon, lalake naman siya" (exactly...)
Interviewr asked about the case when a cake shop denied a LGBTQ couple's request to purchase a wedding cake.
Etta answers that SOGIE Bill does not allow for same *** marraige, (OMG, twice!) She can't even answer the question if the item to be bought was a wedding cake. The interviewer have to modify the scenario just to obtain the answer..
She then answers that the couple must go somewhere else. But when compared to a boy entering a christian school, she insists na dapat pwede yung bata kasi "gusto mag aral nung bata". It is unclear kung kailan magiging violation ng SoGIE Bill, and this is unacceptable if the consequence was to criminalize these acts.
Verdict: After watching this interview, despite giving it a chance, it shows that SOGIE bill is that token bill that politician must have to not be demonized by the public. It is a facade they have to wear.
The problem arises, when this becomes a law, and the public and law enforcers misrepresents it's provision while complex scenarios arise. It will not be ammended until there are victims of abuse, and people are wrongfully criminalized.
In short, instead of ironing out the flaws of the bill, there will be pressures to Ratify it as if it is an emergency, in expense of the vast majority of Filipinos.
*I will edit in my comments and reaction on each portion later.
Here is the interview.
The interviewer asked about the possible conflict of the SOGIE bill to existing laws on religious freedom, like compelling an all-girls-school to accept boy or vice versa..
Napaka-convuluted ng sagot ni Etta. She started about stating the obvious that we must follow what is already a law, ignoring the fact na kaya nga ito pinag-uusapan dahil ayaw ng mga tao maging law ang bill na ito.
Then she states "that is when your religious belief becomes questionable" while still failing to answer the scenario tackling the questionability of "their" belief.
Then her answers becomes so confused on communicating what she means, and as a listener I dont even get anymore what she means when she says "biological girl/boy".
Honestly, napakalabo ng sagot nya dito, where the question is simply asking about the conflict with religious rights. Failed answer IMHO.
Now the interviewer address the issue on transgender in women sports, citing the example of Fallon Fox bashing the head of his* opponent who is a biological female in MMA(mixed martial arts).
Etta answers this by saying anyone should not bash heads regardless of gender (what?!) She sounded like she does not understand the concept of combat sports. She even proposes to "seperate" the participants according to "strength" because we separate them anyway by height and weight. But how do you do that? Aren't they competing in the sports to prove exactly who is stronger?
And when given the example: Lebron James joining the Womens' division she then says "hindi naman pwede iyon, lalake naman siya" (exactly...)
Interviewr asked about the case when a cake shop denied a LGBTQ couple's request to purchase a wedding cake.
Etta answers that SOGIE Bill does not allow for same *** marraige, (OMG, twice!) She can't even answer the question if the item to be bought was a wedding cake. The interviewer have to modify the scenario just to obtain the answer..
She then answers that the couple must go somewhere else. But when compared to a boy entering a christian school, she insists na dapat pwede yung bata kasi "gusto mag aral nung bata". It is unclear kung kailan magiging violation ng SoGIE Bill, and this is unacceptable if the consequence was to criminalize these acts.
Verdict: After watching this interview, despite giving it a chance, it shows that SOGIE bill is that token bill that politician must have to not be demonized by the public. It is a facade they have to wear.
The problem arises, when this becomes a law, and the public and law enforcers misrepresents it's provision while complex scenarios arise. It will not be ammended until there are victims of abuse, and people are wrongfully criminalized.
In short, instead of ironing out the flaws of the bill, there will be pressures to Ratify it as if it is an emergency, in expense of the vast majority of Filipinos.
*I will edit in my comments and reaction on each portion later.
Attachments
-
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Last edited: