Christian Ethics Final Paper

The video highlights the discrimination against LGBTQ+ community in the

Philippines as a result of deficient knowledge about sexuality, gender, genetics
and heredity, and prejudicial beliefs from different religions. In the light of the
foregoing, the narrator strongly believes that sexual identity is not limited to both
male and females.

According to the narrator, Filipinos are resistant in accepting emerging

genders like gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, and queer in the society due
religious beliefs would tell us that God only made man (male) and woman
(female). The narrator emphasized that discrimination towards the LGBTQ+
community is attributed to low quality of Philippine Education System particularly
in the field of Science. As evidence to his claims, he cited the wrong superstitious
beliefs about practices in procreation and notion about the mental illness of
LGBTQ+ members as an evident proof why the Philippines remains to be behind
other countries in terms of education.

The proposition of the narrator is misplaced. First, the narrator claim that the
concept of LGBTQ+ should be accepted because most develop nations are
favorably inclined towards it. By citing that advanced countries accepts this
emerging concepts of gender, and so should the Philippines, the narrator fell to
the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Moreover, the narrator seems to attribute the non-acceptance of the

LGBTQ+ concept due to the contrary position of the religion, while ignoring other
factors such as culture, demographics, and other data that may contradict his
argument. The narrator is cherry picking to suppress other factors that may affect
his argument, thus, the fallacy of incomplete evidence.
In addition, the narrator’s argument that discrimination towards LGTBQ+ is
due to religious belief is misplaced. The narrator wrongly insinuate that it was the
strong opposition of the church that led to such discrimination, discounting the
other attending circumstances.

In the point of view of Virtue ethicist, a benevolent person would never

demonize another human being by his or her decisions in life. Instead, he will
understand the history and the context why third-party genders have emerged.
Thus, a virtuous person will whole-heartedly accept the gender preference of an
LGBTQ+ member.

However, there are several infamous acts from the community which
requires condemnation. Two of those are sex in public and same-sex relationships
which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Virtue ethicist would also
understand non-virgin people entering marriage as it is their choice on how and
until when to preserve their chastity. However, infidelity during marriage which is
rampant in today’s era calls for unanimous condemnation by virtue ethicist.
Infidelity is contrary to virtues like morality, trust, loyalty and consistency. In both
cases mentioned above, virtue ethicist will wish them to live a good life as it is the
ultimate goal for every human being.

Christian ethicist would mostly disagree with the video by proving that
gender aside from male and female is not found in the sacred scriptures. A
Christian ethicist would likely view this as an abomination.

This apparent with the strong opposition of Christian ethicist against

creation of third-party genders and homosexuality is not one without basis but is
wholly supported by specific provisions in the sacred scriptures. However, it is not
the person whom they condemn or hate but the sin itself. Christian ethicist judges
the act and not the person. They will strictly follow what is written in the sacred
scriptures, the traditions, and the church’s teachings, hence the foregoing view.

- Charles D. Flores
2019-1862-9