The COMELEC are homophobic, bigoted theocrats. Yes, this is a generalization, but they deserve it. Because this is what they did to the LGBT community when they rejected Ang Ladlad’s party-list application.
The COMELEC are homophobes. By rejecting Ang Ladlad’s application — and through their reasons for the rejection — they said that all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are not only immoral, but a threat to society.
The COMELEC are religious bigots. They are intolerant to the beliefs of others, incapable of allowing any truth other than their own. Yet they force others to take as truth their own traditions and doctrines.
The COMELEC are theocrats. They have forgotten the Constitution of all Filipinos and replaced it with the Canon law followed by some Christians and the Sharia laws followed by some Muslims.
But enough with the generalizations. I can only stomach stooping to their level for so long. These are the individuals responsible for the ruling:
- Nicodemo Ferrer, Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister, Our Lady of the Purification Parish, Binmaley, Pangasinan
- Lucenito Tagle, Past president of Christ the King Parish Pastoral Council in Greenmeadows, Quezon City
- Elias Yusoph, an Imam or Muslim leader who has been linked to former commissioner Virgilio Garcillano
The first three are the co-signatories of the ruling, but the next three, if they have simply allowed the ruling to be released, are just as guilty:
- Jose A.R. Melo
- Armando C. Velasco
- Rene V. Sarmiento
As chairman, Jose A.R. Melo is responsible for all the rulings released by the six-man commission. I don’t know about Armando Velasco, but if they did know about the ruling signed by the other three, then I’m most disappointed in Rene V. Sarmiento. If he knew about the ruling and allowed it, then he doesn’t deserve to be called a human rights lawyer, let alone a constitutionalist.
In any case, the religious biases of three (or six) individuals should not be imposed on the millions who have their own beliefs, not to mention their own equal, unalienable human rights.
I don’t want to spend any more time talking about why COMELEC’s ruling is an atrocity. This is no longer the time for talk. It’s time to take action.
If you support Ang Ladlad, the LGBT movement, and the Human Rights movement, if you want to protect the freedom and equality granted by our secular Constitution, then join us tomorrow.
From members of Ang Ladlad:
From Ang Ladlad members: ANG LADLAD, our LGBT partlylist, was NOT accredited by COMELEC on two grounds: IMMORALITY DOCTRINE and as a THREAT TO THE YOUTH. We are planning to have massive protest actions regarding this discriminatory Comelec decision and treatment against LGBTs. PLEASE join i…n solidarity with us. ATTEND the LGBT MEETING on SAT., Nov. 14 9am-12nn, University Hotel, UP Diliman, QC. Please forward to other groups and individuals.
See you all tomorrow. I’m sure you agree this is a worthy cause. Unless you’re a homophobic, bigoted theocrat.
*
While you’re waiting for tomorrow, please consider reading the following:
- Comelec bars gays in House on grounds of immorality (PDI)
- Hontiveros condemns poll body’s homophobia, says it violated the constitution (Risa Hontiveros)
- Bigotry in Our Ballots (Fullman)
- Newfound Church of Comelec (Filipino Freethinkers)
- Congratulations COMELEC: But eating shellfish is also an abomination… (Rainbow Bloggers)
- On Comelec and Ang Ladlad (Manila Gay Guy)
Popularity: 2% [?]
I can’t believe Sarmiento allowed this to happen!
His not signing the actual ruling leaves room for hope that he was in fact against this. We’ll find out soon enough.
So you’re telling us that people should not let their religious beliefs influence their take on things? Religion dictates most peoples moral beliefs and asking them to ignore my moral beliefs just for the sake of being politically correct or in order to make judgements is like asking people to be immoral so they can perform their duties.
How is giving Ang Ladlad the chance to represent their group in government ignoring your moral beliefs?
And how is doing this the same as asking people to be immoral?
Are you from COMELEC?
Nope I’m not from COMELEC nor am I enamored of them
I wasn’t saying that homosexuality is immoral. I don’t judge people based on their sexual orientation. It’s not my business how people conduct their lives. Yes I read your blog on the separation of the church and state. But what you are actually telling us is to denounce the COMELEC commissioners for not setting aside their moral and religious beliefs in the performance of their duties. It is like saying that in their official capacity, their moral and religious beliefs do not apply. And so in order to be politically correct (some may call it “secularism”), one must do what may necessarily be against their moral beliefs. After all, each and every one of us is driven by our moral and religious beliefs (or the lack of it) in the performance of our daily lives. Even in official capacity.
Of course, the supreme court will always have the last say in such matters.
You may have read my post on secularism, but I think you don’t understand it. The Constitution, our government, public servants — these serve citizens of all religions. If the COMELEC cannot tell apart religious issues from civil ones, or think there’s no problem mixing the two together (like you apparently do), then they are not fit to serve the public, and must either resign or be fired from their positions.
Oh I understand it perfectly. Easy to say secularism. But until you can separate the person from his moral and religious beliefs, it ain’t gonna happen. Maybe it’s you who don’t understand. Secularism is only good for those who are non-religious. For the non-secular, no law, not even the constitution is superior to their moral and religious beliefs
And now it becomes clear you are against secularism. And you don’t know about its history, and the current events related to secularism. The absence of secularism can only be good for those who are members of the religion in power. Without secularism, those who believe differently tend to be abused. Again. Look it up.
Oh I’m not against secularism. I’m an atheist. I just think like I’m putting myself in the shoes of those religious bigots.
No one in the civil service is expected to divorce his/her conscience and beliefs in the performance of public duties. In fact it won’t do any good. To do so is to send the country into “a short route chaos” as Thomas More wisely put it. However in the performance of public duties in a secular state, one has to be extremely aware that one cannot impose your belief or conscience on another person. If you feel that performing a public duty violates your faith or conscience, then the law does provide room for conscientious objection. If that is not enough, then resign as Thomas More did.
From what I read in this thread our understanding of secular morality is quite shallow like requiring secularists to dump their one’s conscience. That is not the raison d’ etre of secularism. True secularism does not debase religion at all. But we should not elevate religious conviction in the performance of our duties without due consideration for others who don’t share that conviction.
@darwin 25: “Oh I’m not against secularism. I’m an atheist. I just think like I’m putting myself in the shoes of those religious bigots.”
Hold on. You’re just playing devil’s advocate? Be careful of being in bigot shoes too long — you might turn into one yourself. Now take the shoes off. What do you think of the COMELEC’s actions against secularism?
And unlike most atheists and seculars, I do not ignore the fact that religion for the most part dictates the moral values of a person. And my conclusion is that setting aside one’s moral beliefs so he can do what his job mandates him to do job is generally not good because you sacrifice what you think is right for the sake of what is convenient. AND THAT IS BAD. And you know why? Because a man who can conveniently set aside his morals is a man who is devoid of morality. And you don’t want such a person running the affairs of the state.
@darwin: “And unlike most atheists and seculars, I do not ignore the fact that religion for the most part dictates the moral values of a person.”
I’m sorry to say this, but I think now you’re just playing the role of an atheist and secularist.
No Ryan, I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I said I’m thinking like I’m in the shoes of those bigots. I do that so I can be objective and see for myself their own points of view.
I wasn’t saying that the COMELEC commissioners were right. What I’m saying is that until we can minimize the influence of religion in the moral beliefs of the people, or until we can separate the person from his moral and religious beliefs, secularism ain’t gonna happen in this deeply religious and fatalistic country.
What I think of the COMELEC’s decision is that they should have decided based on the merits of what the law says.
@Ryan: “I’m sorry to say this, but I think now you’re just playing the role of an atheist and secularist.”
Suit yourself. You failed to see my point as most people fixated only on their own view of things does.
That is a big assumption — that the commissioners being Christians is the reason that they denied partylist accreditation to LGBT’s.
@dante R: “That is a big assumption — that the commissioners being Christians is the reason that they denied partylist accreditation to LGBT’s.”
Sorry dante R, but not really — if you have a brain. Why would anyone use as proof a Bible if they do not believe in it? And who believes in the Bible? Wait, let me make an assumption… Christians?
Oh, and I wonder which of the six-man commission cited the Koran as proof of immorality. Could it be the Imam? Hmm, have to make another assumption…
I see no logical nor ethical reason for the COMELEC to reject an LGBT group on the basis of immorality. And immorality… that is a touchy term. Branding the LGBT lifestyle as immorality is certainly a bias on the part of the decision-makers. If homosexuality were prohibited by law, that would be a reason… but to see that law existing would mean that the legislators have gone bigot. Even if the COMELEC were Christians, they have no right to insert their personal views into their work decisions. They want to impose their morality in their work, which is an unethical practice.
My question to Comelec is: When did being gay automatically make you some vile, contemptuous creature living in sin?
Surely we have more than enough of that sort among the perfectly “natural”, heterosexual politicians who seem to have no difficulty getting their partidos accredited.
should read “ignore their moral beliefs” instead of “ignore my moral beliefs”
Your correction does not make your first comment any less wrong. As public officials they represent civil concerns, not religious ones. Read my previous post on separation of church and state. And while you’re at it, research about what has happened and is happening in theocratic countries.
so my comment is wrong because????
As freesince09 said, one word: secularism. Look it up.
*hitch to hear stances*
One word: Secularism
we do not have any laws protecting gays from discrimination?
None yet. The Anti-Discrimination Bill remains pending in the Committee. And from the looks of it, there’s a fat chance in hell that it will be taken up by this Congress.
You can derive protection for minorities in several clauses in the Constitution. However, and as COMELEC has shown, some officials are so stupid you need to spell it out for them. You can’t be too explicit with these idiots.
LBGTs are minorities?
“LBGTs are minorities?”
Face. Palm.
What? You think LGBT is the majority sexual orientation?
No. I’m thinking gender. There’s only male and female. Or maybe the ISO standard for male, female, non-gender entities and neuter. As far as I’m concerned whatever their sexual orientation, they are always a part of the mainstream gender. They have the same rights as any other male of female. And that giving them more rights would put those in the mainstream sexual-orientation at a disadvantage. Next thing you know, homosexuals will be crying foul and discrimination over whatever perceived injustice against them whether justified or not and that the rights of straight men and women will be trampled and neglected because they always have to be extra-cautious when dealing with homosexuals lest they be accused of discrimination
@darwin25: Atheist conservatives (like how you want yourself known) won’t argue like this. You are such a disgrace for them.
“They have the same rights as any other male of female. And that giving them more rights would put those in the mainstream sexual-orientation at a disadvantage.”
– At least the religious Right is consistent that homosexuality is an abomination.
“Next thing you know, homosexuals will be crying foul and discrimination over whatever perceived injustice against them whether justified or not and that the rights of straight men and women will be trampled and neglected because they always have to be extra-cautious when dealing with homosexuals lest they be accused of discrimination”
– oh i love replacing your statements with other items which draw parallelisms in history!!
“Next thing you know, WOMEN will be crying foul and discrimination over whatever perceived injustice against them whether justified or not and that the rights of MEN will be trampled and neglected because they always have to be extra-cautious when dealing with WOMEN lest they be accused of discrimination”
want to say i’m wrong about this? Read your history textbooks. You could’ve missed a few chapters on the suffrage movement and Mary Wollstonecraft. Like I said, i would’ve understood you if you were arguing as part of the religious Right.
Oh so now my comment above is awaiting for moderation? Can’t stand dissenting opinion?
What? If it’s no politically correct then it won’t get published here? How tolerant.
i am supremely confident that this decision will not pass muster at the supreme court.
Let’s see, GabbyD. I used to think this idiocy cannot happen at all! In any case, the cards are now on the table. This will be a landmark case for the LGBT, human rights, and secularism movements.
GabbyD,
Let me ask you this.
Did the Supreme Court, even recognize what happened to the system when Ferdinand Marcos initiated a brilliant plan against the Filipinos. I don’t need to tell you the whole history that’ve taken place. “Martial Law”; to oppress individual’s dignity of life, is what I call it. We must understand the Law. And Supreme Court can also ratify conflict(s).
I am for Human Rights, regardless of who you are. This is my perspective on Human Rights; in short. We all can live in this huge cirlce of rock, called Earth. With Dignity and Prosperity.
mario,
you don’t have to go far in asking that question about the Supreme Court. Marcos is history, but the human rights violations of the present President GMA’s administration surpasses that of any Philippine administrations.
Bert,
Isn’t that ashamed. To let herself to be part of the system.
Wait, is that a Mole on her face. It is a Mole!
Hi, darwin25. I got two questions for you regarding this statement:
“After all, each and every one of us is driven by our moral and religious beliefs (or the lack of it) in the performance of our daily lives. Even in official capacity.”
How about atheists? Sure they aren’t a huge visible chunk of the population, but that’s beside the point. How do you quantify a person’s capacity to conduct decisions given his/her lack of “religious beliefs”?
And before you answer with “morality”, how do you determine if a person is on the moral side of the coin? Dictionary.com defines moral as “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical”. This tells us that religion is not necessary to be a good person.
I’d really love to hear your take on these two issues.
Barny, you have to make it clear to darwin25 that you want HIS answer, not his perceived answer of another group. He tried to make the excuse that he was trying to wear the smelly shoes of the COMELEC when he made some comments earlier.
You shouldn’t have to ask him this, because he claims to be an atheist AND secularist. But like I said, I doubt that. I now even doubt that he believes in evolution, as his name might imply.
Believing in evolution is one thing – he can be an atheist without the full knowledge of what the theory is all about.
Understanding what evolution – is another thing.
There are only two choices to believe in…creation, or, evolution.
An atheist believing in creation? Meron bang ganun?
My moral beliefs are not influenced by any religion. My moral beliefs are shaped by my own capacity to think what is and what isn’t right. It is shaped by my own life experiences. That I am an atheist doesn’t mean that I am also a liberal. For most people, their religious beliefs influences their moral values. And moral values are good. It’s just that what works for the religious does not work for me as an atheist.
@Ryan,
Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I should think like you. I believe in evolution but I don’t let science dictate my thinking. I do my own thinking. My concept of right and wrong is not influenced by religion, not by science. Not even by the law.
You have been calling for secularism. You can expect what you think is ideal but what you don’t understand is the effect of religion in the thinking of other people because you don’t have one. The law says that public officials should not factor in their religious and moral beliefs in making a decision. But the religious beliefs requires them to act according to their faith, no matter what the law says. And for the religious, no law is superior to their religious beliefs. The law may require the commissioners to approve Ang Ladlad’s application but if their strong religious beliefs requires them to reject it, which do you think will happen?
Until you can understand and appreciate where their bigotry is coming from you are not going to get anywhere in this issue.
“I believe in evolution but I don’t let science dictate my thinking.”
Very telling.
“But the religious beliefs requires them to act according to their faith, no matter what the law says.”
This simply means that they are in no capacity to enforce the law. The law applies to all or to none at all. A cliche, yes, but one with great truth in it. And as applied to the case at hand, this means that if you will allow the said commissioners to disregard the law in the name of their religion, what’s to stop all the other 80 million Filipinos from using their religion as an excuse for disobeying the law? What’s tbo stop a Mormon from practicing polygamy? Or an Evangelical from teaching creationism in a public school? So much for the law and the Constitution.
“I believe in evolution but I don’t let science dictate my thinking.”-darwin25
If not science, then it must be faith, or, superstition, no other. Faith in God, or, belief in a God, that’s your choice, darwin25? Yes?
Then you’re not an atheist.
Or, if not science, is it faith and superstition in your belief on the process of evolution without understanding what evolution is, as joma had said?
Vaguer and vaguer and vaguer.
@Barny
“And before you answer with “morality”, how do you determine if a person is on the moral side of the coin? Dictionary.com defines moral as “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical”. This tells us that religion is not necessary to be a good person.”
Yes, religion is not necessary to be a good person. It’s just that it is what works for most people. And we shouldn’t ignore that fact.
This is one case where what the law and religion says a person should do is directly in contrast. An issue you cannot simply fit in a box. That’s what the problem is. It just raises too many valid arguments.
@darwin25
“Until you can understand and appreciate where their bigotry is coming from you are not going to get anywhere in this issue.”
– forgive my rudeness but do you know how to open a pdf file and read? If you do, it’s on the posted resolution. It happens to be from the Koran and the Bible. That’s where it’s coming from.
“My moral beliefs are not influenced by any religion. My moral beliefs are shaped by my own capacity to think what is and what isn’t right. It is shaped by my own life experiences. That I am an atheist doesn’t mean that I am also a liberal.”
– Who says you’re being mistaken as a liberal? Your arguments sound too Burke-ish.
@Ram
“– forgive my rudeness but do you know how to open a pdf file and read? If you do, it’s on the posted resolution. It happens to be from the Koran and the Bible. That’s where it’s coming from.”
Have you really read what I wrote? I already spelled out where the bigotry is coming from. RELIGION. E inulit mo lang ang sinabi ko e only you made it more specific.
What’s so discriminating about gays that they should be afforded special law to protect them. Why not special law also for the pandaks, the pangits and the pango-ilong, ahayhehehe.
This is not about giving them special rights, it’s about the violation against the ones they already have.
I was responding to max at 5:37 pm, sorry, Ryan, wrong boundary.
Sorry Bert, that’s straw-man argument. If you can’t see that, then I can’s see the point of arguing with you.
* a straw-man argument.
*…, then I can’t see …
I have not seen such bunch of HOMOPHOBIC IDIOTS in my lifetime.
Rationalizing their religious doctrines, dogmas and beliefs for
their idiotic decisions. Our country is a DEMOCRACY, NOT A THEOCRACY!
I agree, Hyden Toro. And almost as idiotic are people who do not see the evil of homophobia or any form of bigotry.
@darwin on “And that giving them more rights would put those in the mainstream sexual-orientation at a disadvantage. Next thing you know, homosexuals will be crying foul and discrimination over whatever perceived injustice against them …”
- Are you saying I have the same rights as you do? That is absolutely not true! Some questions for you brother: Will the government recognize my marriage to my partner? Can my partner be my insurance’s beneficiary? The answer to these two questions is NO. So do you still think I enjoy the same rights as you do? I do not chief. That is why representation in congress is important to me and to my brothers and sisters.
The country as it is now do not support these rights, and having these right are as equally important as your right to marry your partner.
I too pay my taxes, so is the million of gay and lesbians who too have partners, we pay our taxes… I am paying more in tax than the average pinoy, but why is it that I feel my government has cheated me of my money. We deserve the protection, support and representation that’s due us. To deny us these rights is discrimination and inhuman.
Amen, oboids.
And I wonder who here would dare to say that the tax-payer’s money going to COMELEC officials is money well spent. Any takers?
I’ll take it!
It’s gonna be BETTER spent if we start taxing the churchES na rin, from the point their institutions were established in the Philippines. Maybe we can even pay a large chunk of our foreign debts pag siningil na yang churchES sa taxes nila.
That point is definitely un-secular, pero mas maiisip ko na mas may right makialam ang church kung nagbabayad sila.
@Oboids,
You have the same rights as me and any other straight person in this country. You can marry someone from the opposite gender. That you do not want to practice that right and instead want to marry someone from the same gender somehow gives you a feeling of entitlement above what you accorded to by the constitution.
Sorry. I don’t mean to be rude. I just can’t put it any more lightly
@darwin25
Wanna see why i think your statement is prejudiced? Let’s put it in the issue of racism and segregation by substituting the items.
“You have the same rights as me and any other person in this country. You can marry someone black. That you do not want to practice that right and instead want to marry someone from the white community somehow gives you a feeling of entitlement above what you accorded to by the constitution.”
Oh my, you don’t see a problem right? I’ll assume your answer then. Segregation works that time. Everything that works like racism in the early 20th century is good because it works. Prejudice is good because it works in keeping society stable.
The 1987 Constitution does not mention the Pilipinas is intended to be a country that does not believe in God. The first words of the Constitution:
There is no mention in the 1987 constitution about sexual orientation.
dante, you are making a very strange argument.
1) the partylist system is for minority groups. there is no doubt that LGBT is a minority group.
the constitution needs not list all minority groups that ever existed in the world.
2) the belief in God is not the point. the problem is that there is no “religious test” is the formation of political parities.—> “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”"
thats all, and this is EXTREMELY CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL.
granted, other forms of tests may be used to limit the exercise of civil and political rights. if you are a criminal, your civil rights will be somewhat impaired, for example.
It’s either a funny coincidence or a cruel prank that your alias is Dante R. I hope it’s really the former, because if it’s not, then low blow.
But ok, Dante R. First, you do not understand the separation of church and state clause. Look it up.
Second, the last time I checked, Ang Lantad is not from the religious sector, which is the only group that is explicitly prohibited.
GabbyD is right. And it IS extremely clear. The only thing that can muddle the issue is bigotry glasses. Please take them off.
Dante, neither does it say in the Constitution which specific “Almighty God” we should adhere to. So where do you and Comelec get the assumption it was the Christian God, or Allah?
God can be Jehovah or Yahweh to the Jews. Allah to
the Muslims. Jesus Christ to the Christians. The Great Satan to the Devil Worshippers. Ra to the Egyptian Pahraohs. Ram to India’s Hindus. Great Spirit to the Native American Indians. Zeus to the ancient Greeks.
Thor to the ancient Vikings. The Living Japanese Emperor to the World War II Japanese militarists.
It depends on your concept of Almighty God…
The Inquirer article pinpoints the main reason why the Ang Ladlad partylist request was denied — Moral grounds – “tolerates immorality.” This is warning to owners and employees of houses of prostitution that they, too, stand little chance of obtaining partylist representation.
\
====================
Jayson San Juan points to Republic Act 7941 here:
http://filipinovoices.com/how-can-5th-century-thinkers-implement-21st-century-plans
so apparently, the COMELEC board concludes that Ang Ladlad
2) advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
Are there existing laws of the country which Ang Ladlad members regularly violate?
When COMELEC decides against party-listing for a group which espouses violation of existing laws, the decision should stand (based on RA7941) even if RyanTani, Gabby and others scream “bloody bias!!!”
It is no different than denying partylist for a group that espouses bringing high-power rifles and taking over Oakwood or similar Makati buildings even as EllenTordesillas screams “GMA talsik diyan!”
but did ladlad had a history of trying to destabilize the government, cause mass crime, or threathen the constitution?
they were booted not because they lack or not qualified or being gay is illegal, but were booted because it is against the christian or islamic law to be gay?
and that is a violation of seperation of the church and state, whatever belief you believe
There is some thing about same-sex sex or sex between brothers and sisters — both acts illegal in atheist countries, too.
same sex marriage is a touchy topic to discuss, because there is so many valid arguements, and oh yes the old testament permits incest for some reason
back in topic
in saudi arabia you can be executed for being gay because they are a theocracy. but our country is secular, and should not have bias, or apply in civil works, any religious doctrines.
and laws are created by reason, not divinity
Bravo. Since when did having a different set of sexual orientations automatically equate homosexuals with “employees of houses of prostitution.
There is no sense arguing this false equivalency – you sir, have proven yourself to be a bigot.
Again, biased conservatism proves that it wants to control the people’s and define for them what is right or wrong. Welcome back, Adolf Hitler.
And I thought the Philippines wasn’t racist? Oh wait, nobody said that!
Is there such a thing as biased conservatism? Aren’t conservatives and liberals supposed to be biased for what they believe?
Unfortunately, you make it sound like believing in something makes one biased. Like believing in being unbiased; does that make me biased towards unbiasedness? hehehe.
But you may be right on conservatives. I find them biased very often. Well, at least the over-moralists who like to impose their morality on everyone.
1. LADLAD cannot be classified as a sectoral party under R.A.7941 since they do not represent any of the following sectors enumerated in Section 5 :labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
2. LADLAD cannot be classified as a sectoral organization, or a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns. This is because there are support groups and organizations of persons with same-sex attractions (or what popular media calls homosexuals), but do not share the same interests and concerns of the group LadLad.
3. LADLAD may be a political party, since their desire to be represented in Congress is to speed up the passage of the Anti-Discrimination Bill (currently House Bill 956 and Senate Bill 11) pending in Congress. This is clearly part of LadLad’s agenda (http://www.angladlad.org/about.asp), and together with their desire to repeal the Anti-Vagrancy Law, they will attempt to legalize every homosexual behavior in the Philippines, and possibly introduce same-sex marriage in our country. Please note that the bills they are endorsing have a repealing clause that will incapacitate all our criminal laws. Through these laws, homosexuals will have a freehand on any behavior they choose.
4. LADLAD does not represent a group that is marginalized by society. I argue that because homosexuality is something that is vaguely understood by the people, discrimination springs from ignorance and misconceptions (quoting Hon. Etta Rosales on her introductory note for HB634), and not from a malicious intent of judgment. After all, persons with good experiences with homosexuals tend to love homosexuals – notwithstanding the efforts of the gay community to desensitize the public through their independent “gay” films like DayBreak, Dose, Ang Lihim ni Antonio, just to name a few. If truly the gay community is marginalized, gay parades, gay beauty pageants, gay films, gay magazines and other manifestation of “gayness” will not be allowed in Philippine society. But the fact is they are accepted by the public, and the true cases of homosexual discrimination may be caused by poverty or ignorance.
5. LADLAD represents a behavior-based group, not like the other sectors enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941. They do not rest on substantial distinctions (People v. Cayat) that have relative permanency (such as the elderly or women), but only on superficial difference that changes relatively in time. As such, they may represent a group that may recklessly impose their own behavior standards on the public. They represent a group that promotes and celebrates the homosexual lifestyle – cruising, gay-bars, same-sex relationships and sexual activities. I don’t think the law (RA7941) was created for the purpose of including behavior-based groups. If you will allow LadLad to be a candidate for partylist, then we should also allow shoppers, car enthusiasts, pedophiles and mountain hikers to file their candidacies as well.
Hmm, if these were the reasons for rejecting Ladlad, it would probably be more understandable. The problem was with the pronouncement that Ladlad represents an “immoral” group. I see that as the real problem.
these reasons are interesting, especially number 4.
#1 is not important as the law is not oblidged to list all the different groups in history, future and past. thats too much for any law.section 2 says as much.
#2 your same concerns criteria is too strict. just because there are other groups. if true, there should only be 1 group per sector, which is obviously not true. moreover, this criteria isn’t in the law.
#3 doesnt make sense. the business of a party is to espouse its political beliefs. if they want to push for certain laws, ASSUMING THEY WIN THE ELECTION, thats their job.
#4 is very interesting. the KEY criteria is “marginalized” and “under-represented”. the law only has vague clues as to what these mean. in particular, the second adjective is weird — by definition, under represented RELATIVE TO WHAT?
there is another criteria, suffiently vague: “who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole”
#4 is debatable, and i’d love it if this was the argument — but it ISNT.
#5.section 5 merely lists possible groups and sectors. not all of these have biological permanency (urban poor, OFWs?) or substantial distinctions.
if that was their reason people would understand. people are just crying foul because it was “religious based” instead of “law based” decision
and no the every word of Christian God or Allah is law in our country
IGNORE TOP POST. DAMN TYPO
if that was their reason people may understand. people are just crying foul because it was “religious based” instead of “law based” decision
and no, not every word of Christian God or Allah is law in our country
christian,
you are the best and most reasonable. you have won the argument according to my world view… lol
As a reply to items (1) and (5), why did the Comelec allow the party-list Buhay to run? Members of the anti-choice movement do not represent any of the following sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
Now, don’t say that they represent all of these sectors, because then that would be equivalent to saying that homosexuals also represent all of these sectors, since there are many gays in the labor force, there are a lot of gay peasants and fisherfolk, a lot of lesbians in urban poor communities – not to mention that lesbians are women too. And do you forget that a majority of the members of Ladlad are part of the youth sector? And do you want to forget all the gays who fought in the war, all the gays who work overseas and all the gay professionals all around the country (or do you not watch fashion shows?)?
As a reply to item (2), I’ll once again site the notorious example of the anti-life Buhay party-list. A lot of anti-life people do not adhere to the views of Buhay, so why was Buhay allowed to make a bid while Ladlad was rejected, if not for religious bigotry and a gross and rather deliberate misunderstanding of the law? Why, not all people in the anti-choice camp (the pro-birth camp) even share the religious views of Buhay.
And if Ladlad is not allowed to “promote homosexual behavior”, then why is Buhay allowed to “promote anti-choice behavior”?
As they stand, the statements you made on item (3) constitute a straw-man argument. If anything in a laws that Ladlad endorses goes against the Constitution or the letter of established laws, then it won’t be passed in Congress under the grounds of unconstitutionality, period. By giving item (3), you seem to imply that the Constitution does not include measures that ensure that no one sector of society can enforce its peculiarities to the greater part of the population, that is, the rest of us. If a law endorsed by Ladlad is passed in both Houses, is signed by the President and is not repealed by the Supreme Court, then that means that the said law is Constitutional – it has nothing to do with whether you like the said law or not. If it is Constitutional, it may get passed (may being the operative word). If it is not, it will not get passed. What are you so afraid of Ang Ladlad’s getting three seats in Congress?
After all, not all Filipinos share the anti-choice sentiments of Buhay. But why is Buhay allowed to enforce their beliefs, practices and behavior upon all Filipinos, not all of whom share the said beliefs, practices and behavior? If you think that Ang Ladlad’s candidacy constitute an infringement of your religious rights, then what do you think about Buhay’s infringement of MY religious rights and freedoms as a non-believer and citizen of the Philippines? Why are they (representatives of the Buhay party-list) allowed to “promote their anti-choice behavior” and why is Ladlad not allowed to equally “promote homosexual behavior”? Clearly, your “Ang Ladlad will promote homosexual behavior” argument is one big straw-man.
well said.
the answer to your last question is because they think that ang ladlad is wrong and whatever buhay said is right, because the bibie or koran said so, with complete disregard to what the constitution said
and their interpretation of immoral is “whatever is against the bible”
as i said laws are created by reason, not divinity
Oh so now my comments are awaiting for moderation? Can’t stand dissenting opinion? How tolerant.
WTF? who’s moderating your posts?
Okay. I’m out of here. It just became obvious that with the moderation thing, my opinion will be filtered out. No sense staying here.
Ironic isn’t it. The same people asking for tolerance has no tolerance for dissenting opinion.
Bigots
You’re still the bigot darwin25 even if you are moderated. And i don’t see any moderating thing here. I hope you’re not making this up. If you really are up to arguing, name the forum and i’ll be there. And if there is moderation being done please stop it because he might be making up excuses, unless what he’s doing is already flaming.
Ram,
What constitute an argument(s) between a subject, no matter what it is, that the individual(s) frame of mind is not contributing to the cause, rather they are stuck to their conscience or beliefs. Not adhering to the actual presentation or cause. Also, what’s discriminating about any issue that you may present to [COMELEC]
it’s the Man’s Law that makes it so incriminating to others.
What resolution do [COMELEC]
abides by. Religious thinking, or common Man’s Law. To procure issue(s) involves great minds. Also, it takes great care for litigation to happen.
The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty. Or, does COMELEC even understand this!
Darwin25,
First of all, stop the excuses. If you have no valid reply, just don’t make any. And don’t try to make excuses, lie about being moderated, etc.
Second, we now know you are a liar.
You disguise yourself as an atheist and secularist then you say: “I practice my religion as I see fit.” http://filipinovoices.com/how-the-cbcp-turned-our-congressmen-into-cowards/comment-page-1#comment-112105
If anything I think you are a bigot in disguise. Own up to your bigotry. At least you’ll have your integrity.
there is an interesting twist: the civil code requires that the govt enforce morality, crack down on immorality.
And what morality is this? Do you mean Christian morality, that paradox of a concept?
If the Comelec were truly moral and ethical, it would allow the party-list bid of Ang Ladlad because it is the moral and ethical duty of the Commission as a part of a secular Government to enforce the morality of the constitution – a morality that is secular and religion-neutral, a morality which treats all citizens as equal under the eyes of the law – and more so to protect and serve all of its constituents, especially those who are discriminated against and those who are down-trodden.
On the other hand, by rejecting Ladlad’s bid, the Commission not only violated the Constitution, it violated the very morals that the Constitution of the Philippines stands for. At the same time, the Commissioners violated their primary mandate – to serve the people. And by people I mean every Filipino regardless of gender, sexuality, creed or affiliation.
thats precisely the problem pecier. the civil code requires that the govt protect morals.
morals may come from religion.
the comelec decided that homosexuality is immoral.
their argument is its their job to protect morals/fight immorality.
how does this affect the separation clause?
the problem is the definition of “immoral” is far too broad and can be interpreted in any way, in contrast to other thing written in the constitution which gives a single meaning.
we need Charter Change, the People Power Hype is just too noticable in the present one
Yes Ryan I am a liar. I lie about having a religion. I don’t usually admit that I am an atheist unless I am forced to defend my “religion” which I can’t because I am really an atheist. And you know why? Because my family and friends have been trying to convert me back to religion and I want to make them believe that they did. And unlike the homosexuals and Ang Ladlad, I don’t force people around to accept that I am an atheist because it will hurt them and because right now, they can’t accept it. And yes, I’m a church going atheist. I go to church with my family because it is family time. And family is more important to me than my beliefs. And I’m not only a liar, I’m also a hypocrite. Because that keeps the harmony in my family and with my friends.
Ryan, if I am really religious, it would be a sin for me to deny my religion, to deny god, like Peter denied Jesus. But since I am an atheist, it is no problem for me disguising as religious.
Making things up? Excuse me. I can handle my own. I can take on all of your arguments till kingdom come. Just get it on. Somebody’s been moderating and deleting my posts since yesterday. I had to use another computer and another name just so I can post this.
Anyway here is my condensed reply to Rams post that somebody here has been constantly deleting. I have edited part’s of it that I think is the reason why my reply has been constantly being moderated and deleted.
“Next thing you know, WOMEN will be crying foul and discrimination over whatever perceived injustice against them whether justified or not and that the rights of MEN will be trampled and neglected because they always have to be extra-cautious when dealing with WOMEN lest they be accused of discrimination”
Bakit hindi ba? Feminists are demanding that society treat women as equals to men, yet the same feminists are asking society to accord women with special treatment. Want proof? Huwag ka ng lumayo. Sumakay ng MRT. Why are there train cars reserved exclusively for women?
You know what? I got no problems with homosexuals. I don’t hate them, I don’t judge them. What they do in their private lives is non of my business. Society has already accepted them too. But I will not accept that my concept of family and marriage be distorted. That makes me a bigot. Thank you. I’m a happy camper.
And I got no problems with Ang Ladlad being granted accreditation as party list. All I’m saying is that religion still dominates the hearts and minds of the Filipinos. And you can denounce the COMELEC officials for rejecting Ang Ladlad’s accreditation but you can’t blame them that their religious beliefs are far more influential in their decision making than what they swore to do and uphold. Secularism is all too good on paper until you put it into practice. It is not something you can simply legislate and voila, the Philippines is free the bigotries of religion. NO. Until we learn to appreciate, APPRECIATE, NOT SIMPLY KNOW where it’s coming from, we’re not going to get anywhere on this issue.
hi darwin25,
if you admitted being a liar, why should we believe what you are saying/writing now?
I heared your views (about homos, about comelec view, and others), but how can I be sure that you are telling us what you mean, when you admit being a liar?
A lie about being religious? First all I said about my “religion” is I practice my religion as I see fit. That in itself isn’t an admission that I have a religion. That means I go to church because my family, my wife, my wife’s family goes to church. Call me a closet atheist if you will. I was only forced to admit to atheism because Ryan challenged me that I am against secularism which I am not. And how can I defend something I am not. But atheist or not. My views about the issue is still the same. As if my being religious or an atheist matters in the issue. So far, all I got from Ryan are accusations of bigotry and no REAL arguments. I would have to give credit to Ram though for raising valid questions.
1. The COMELEC shouldn’t have denied Ang Ladlad’s application on the basis of their religious beliefs
2. I understand why the COMELEC commissioners let their religion beliefs be the deciding factor in their decision to deny (which apparently is the reason why I am being castigated as a bigot). That is because I understand the influence of religion even in our public officials. How can you denounce someone for standing up for something he believes in?
3. Secularism is all good on paper until you put it into practice in a religious and fatalistic country.
To my disappointment, many of my arguments and questions to Ryan, Ram and the others are deemed politically incorrect by the owner of this forum so I am being constantly being moderated for the last 2 days. Those are fair questions and valid arguments. No flaming involved. Maybe just not too palatable. But since I’m sure if I try to raise them again here they will be deleted why bother. Oh I would love to raise them again and see what the replies will be and see if these people really believe what they’re saying. My post above was only made possible by the intervention of Jon Limjap (whom I sent printscreens of my moderated posts.) with Nick. BTW Nick, Jon told me you’re going to send me an email, you really don’t have to. I already get the point. Just let me finish indulging Ryan and the rest of the gang until they’re either satisfied or too disgusted to continue with this issue and I’m permanently out of here.
I don’t know if this post is going to get through. I hope it does.
Sure, Darwin.
Again my question is: Since you admitted to to have lied – and that being an atheist; you have no problem disguising as religious: How can I, as one who read your posts, be sure that you meant what you said?
Look, put it this way: How can I make joma (and other readers) be convinced (or take me seriously) of my point of view when publicly, I admitted that I could lie at my comfort?
How can joma (and other readers) know that I am not telling a lie now?
Well you don’t have to. And I never presented myself as religious when I commented in this thread. And that comment Ryan caught in his other thread isn’t in itself an admission of having religion.
And let the first person here who don’t lie (ever) be the first to throw the stone.
And let me help you with your accusation
http://filipinovoices.com/whos-sleeping-with-the-enemy/comment-page-1#comment-106824
“Infidels like us christians and non-muslims. ”
I would have said “Infidels like us christians and non-muslims and atheists like me.” Why not? Because my being an atheist is out of place in the argument. Much like out of place in the thread Ryan is pointing out on me.
“Yes Ryan I am a liar. I lie about having a religion.”
- Darwin25 on Nov 17 9:22
“And I never presented myself as religious when I commented in this thread.”
-Darwin on Nov 18, 7:05
More lies? But you may have the last say, which I will read and we just have to move on..
Whatever joma,
BTW do you have REAL arguments?
And joma, I don’t need to defend myself about my being atheist as long as that issue does not invalidate my arguments. So what if I presented myself as “I practice my religion as I see fit”. That isn’t an admission to anything. What that really means in the context of the thread where Ryan picked it up is that choose and practice what I believe and no church or religious belief influence what I believe and do. “Yes Ryan, I am liar” and I also said I’m a hypocrite. I was indulging Ryan. He got it backwards. I’m not a religious bigot disguising as an atheist bigot. I’m a closet atheist bigot.
Look you can distort my statements all you want. Read the whole comments therad and I never commented at it as if I am a religious person. And I never faltered or changed any of my arguments.
“I’m not a religious bigot disguising as an atheist bigot. I’m a closet atheist bigot.”
- Darwin25
Wow.
“I don’t usually admit that I am an atheist unless I am forced to defend my “religion” which I can’t because I am really an atheist. And you know why? Because my family and friends have been trying to convert me back to religion and I want to make them believe that they did.”
So I guess your family checks all of your comments on the net to see whether they have really converted you. And of course, to hide from them, you used an alias AND disguise yourself as a religious bigot. You know, para sure.
Darwin25, some friendly advice — you’re in a hole. Stop digging.
What hole Ryan? You gonna bury me? I have answered you with arguments and so far you are yet to present me with yours. Let me see them.
You know Ryan, you’re focusing too much on my atheism or religion. I can explain on and on and on and you’re not going to be satisfied. You are just exposing your lack of any real argument. Shoot down my arguments with your counter-arguments if you have any.
That is direct challenge Ryan. Do you have arguments or not?
I did make an argument. I’ve been saying that you’re a bigot, which you have admitted, and a liar, which you’ve also admitted. I may have been mistaken about what kind of bigot you are, because as you confess you are an atheist bigot — which I still do not accept, as I will not anything you say, as you have proven to be:
1. a liar
2. an impostor
3. a homophobic bigot
On my last comment, I made another argument. In case you missed it, here it is:
1. You are again lying about hiding from your family, as it is quite obvious that your parents have better things to do than follow you around on the comments section of a post on a website.
2. You have, in this post and my other post, proven yourself to be unworthy of intellectual discourse, as you are dishonest about even your own beliefs, even to your own family.
So sorry. Apparently, you aren’t aware of the saying. If you’ve found that you’ve dug yourself into a hole, stop digging. That is, by trying to save your dignity you’ve only been making things even worse for you. Stop digging.
What?
Face. Palm.
You’re pathetic Ryan. Your argument is attacking my personality? What about the issue at hand? Oh Ryan, Ryan, Ryan.
I’m digging a hole Ryan. Bury me with your intellect. Shoot me down with REAL arguments. With intellectual discourse. I have many above. Shoot them down. Present me some real arguments with regards to the issue at hand.
I’ll help you. here are 2 of my arguments
1. How can you denounce someone for standing up for something he believes in?
2. Secularism is all good on paper until you put it into practice in a religious and fatalistic country.
And I have a question for you here in case you missed it.
http://filipinovoices.com/which-is-more-corrosive-to-the-youth-being-gay-or-cheating-in-elections/comment-page-1#comment-114854
C’mon Ryan. Indulge me with your intellectual discourse.
And Ryan, stop making excuses that you are saving me from disgrace. Sanay ako dyan.
You accused me that I’m making excuses of being moderated when I was unable to defend myself because none of my replies goes through.
Now I’m turning the table on you. I’m accusing you of making excuses of saving me from disgrace because I THINK YOU DON’T HAVE ANY REAL ARGUMENTS. And I’m giving you the opportunity to defend yourself.
That’s some real accusation from me Ryan. C’mon indulge me.
On the other hand Ryan, I kow I said that I’ll just finish indlulging you here till you’re satisfied or too disgusted to continue. I changed my mind. I think I’ll stay here. Just for you. I would love to engage you in intellectual discourse everyday. We’ll be bestfriends Ryan. I’ll be your most vocal critic.
So even if you fail to provide me with some REAL arguments with regards to this issue, you’ll have plenty of opportunities to shoot me down.
“You are again lying about hiding from your family, as it is quite obvious that your parents have better things to do than follow you around on the comments section of a post on a website”
I didn’t say that Ryan. You made that assumption. No you’re putting words in my mouth. Tsk tsk tsk. Show me the post where I said my parents or my family are following me on the website?
You know what, why don’t you just admit that you’re just mad that Ang Ladlad was denied accrediation by COMELEC and that besides that you have no real arguments but to label people who disagree with you as bigots and to dig into the personality of people.
Your a freethinker Ryan, show that you can think of an argument. Come up with something. My Gulay.
You see how this goes Ryan? You have been constantly attacking my character and I have been constatntly trying to engage you in a debate and all you can come up with is more personality attacks.
Nakakahiya ka. C’mon admit it. You can’t come up with something that’s why you’re resorting to character and personality attacks.
Your making this personal Ryan. You attacked and accused me when I couldn’t defend myself. You accused me of folding in this debate and that I’m making excuses of being moderated so I can avoid humiliation. That’s not good Ryan. Now I’m confronting you and you can’t come up with something?
bottomline is…
why is ladlad so adamant to enter as a partylist?
how are we to suppose that their entering as partylist will not entail nationwide promotion of the homosexual agenda?
primary gay activist in the UN douglas sanders admits that:
None of the international human rights instruments mentioned make any reference to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”
he also admits that in the european nations these laws has been slowly passed to fully embrace the homosexual lifestyle:
(a) decriminalisation, (b) an equal age of consent, (c) equal social benefits, (d) inheritance and housing rights, (e) state action against homophobic violence, (f) anti-discrimination laws, (g) equal state funding for homosexual social and cultural organizations, (h) access to marriage or an “equivalent legal framework” and (i) equal adoption rights.
now this would mean that making ladlad a partylist would enable them to pass such laws in congress without much opposition since they are already in power.
God bless the Philippines when that happens…
And which God, sir?
Ahh, the infamous homosexual agenda. Yes, I heard of it too, and I happen to have a copy of it with me:
3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations’ governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic “art” exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.
4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.
The God that has created man “in his image and likeness, male and female he created them”…
The God that designed man to be man, and woman to be woman… it does have to be complicated :)
And what is the proof that there is such being?
im sorry joma, but your question is like asking me if i could describe to you the taste of bagoong with mangoes.
the proof of God is based on one’s experience of God.
the experience of God is different from person to person, and i know that God is visiting your heart as well – we just have to be aware about it and He will come.
i am praying for you :)
You speak like a true bigot – you make pronouncements that you feel are self evident but are in fact question begging. What is so scary about gay rights laws? What is it with protecting a group’s rights that frightens you so much? You think gays will eat your babies?
“now this would mean that making ladlad a partylist would enable them to pass such laws in congress without much opposition since they are already in power.”
Well good for you, you’ve noticed. To have the power to legislate laws that will protect and empower gays, that is the whole bloody point of Ladlad’s Party-list bid. And there is nothing wrong with it.
who will protect and empower the pango, the pangit, the pandaks, the baluga, the macho, the crosseyed, the payatot, the tabatsoy, etc.
I say the comelec should give accreditation to everybody. Fair is fair.
What you really are saying (and to this, I agree with) is that this PartyList nonsense is, well, nonsense.
Mong Palatino, Karl Garcia, MLQ3, Ellen Tordesillas, Primer and that running priest should go through the same process before they get into Congress. The next constitution should eliminate the mumbo-jumbo partylist partylist scheme.
@Christian
The Gay Manifesto
Last I checked, that was supposed to be satire.
So why are you treating it with the same level of seriousness as Bill Donohue does with Stepehen Colbert’s quotes?
“why is ladlad so adamant to enter as a partylist?”
It is ironic that Comelec’s rejection of Ladlad’s bid is the one main reason why Ladlad should be even more adamant. The rejection of Ladlad is diagnostic of our society – it shows that there still exists discrimination against members of the LGTB community here in the Philippines. Because discrimination exists, there is much work to be done, there is a legal battle to fight – there are jobs, relationships and lives to be saved. And no one will fight for the gays and lesbians but themselves?
But they can only wage the human rights war when they are given a fair playing field – that is, when they are afforded the rights the their Constitution already promised them.
The rejection also shows that the very human rights of members of the LGTB community are in danger, for if their party-list application is rejected under religious and pseudo-moral grounds, then what’s to stop the religious bigots in power from taking all of their remaining rights under the same grounds? After all, the same Bible that the Comelec commissioners sited as their source of authority orders us to kill homosexuals by stoning them to death. (Included in the Bible’s list of people to be put to death are children who answer to their parents, people who have sex before marriage, women who GET RAPED but who did not scream very loudly and witches who dabble in “dark magic”, among many others.) If the Bible is treated as a more authoritative legal document than the Constitution, then our very democracy and the human rights that it affords us are all in grave danger.
Well put, pecier. As even the comments and the topic of this post prove, there are already too many bigots around for the bible to be enshrined in law and create even more.
THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
By Michael Swift,
“Gay Revolutionary.” Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987
“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
the previous article was a speech done by one of you, and clearly, as most of your statements here, the gay agenda promotes hostility and disrespect for people who does not believe in the promotion of homosexual activities.
ironically you wanted to be understood by people but you refuse to understand where people are coming from. you start calling people names and slandering them just because we don’t exactly believe in what you believe in.
tell me, with the rise of indie “gay” films and gay magazines and even a gay church to boot, what is there in the philippine society that you haven’t got?
have you been maligned or belittled by people? is it not that the opposite is happening now? people are now becoming more accepting of the homosexual lifestyle.
is the gay community really the ones being discriminated against? or people who does not accept the homosexual lifestyle and are called bigots?
maybe we should be the ones forming a minority group now.
Bravo Christian, Bravo
@christian
how do gays promote hostility?
@Christian
“For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don’t think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.”
Christian, my previous quote was taken from a speech made by Adolf Hitler, a Catholic who was not shy about referencing Christian doctrine to fuel his anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Given the quilt-by-association logic you’re trying to push on gays, does this mean I have as much right to despise all Catholics because of the hateful rhetoric of one of them, because of the vitriol this monster wrote?
Of course the big difference between our documents is that the one you tried to use to incriminate all gays as a naturally hateful community was intentionally satire – can’t you take a joke?
Mine, on the other hand, was written by a certified madman – does that mean I have a right to think all Catholics are like him?
Obviously not, but you on the other hand seem transfixed on imposing the perceived spite of one writer as an inherent characteristic in all gays.
Christian, I have looked everywhere on the web for an original copy of this Homosexual Agenda you posted.
So far, almost every credible site I visited says the same thing – it’s a satirical piece that’s not supposed to be taken seriously.
Just about the only people who think it’s the gospel truth are the Religious Right.
So either you failed to fact-check your own sources, or you’re a well-concealed Poe.
I’d prefer you were the latter.
isnt that the purpose of the partylist? to push under-represented sectoral agendas?
are you really under-represented?
is your agenda not really being pushed?
is your lifestyle not being promoted in media?
are you not really in powerful positions now in media and other industries that you have the guts to malign other people’s beliefs?
what i know is that more and more people now are accepting not only of homosexual persons but also of the homosexual lifestyle.
you term it now as men having sex with men, and the more people are becoming accepting of it, the more you rise up and cry for superiority. you already got acceptance, now you want to rule over our beliefs and convictions by trampling upon them and insisting that you are right and we are wrong.
you are not marginalized. you are celebrating your life. meantime you are calling us names and disrespecting our opinions.
This is to Christian.
We LGBTs and other liberal sectors for that matter (like the ones that promote reproductive health, women’s rights, indigenous rights, laborer’s/employees rights) seek only to pass laws ensuring that no form of discrimination, abuse, and oppression–be that on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, political/ideological leaning, economic condition or any combination of them–gain legitimacy and political/economic/social support. Movements that push for change, especially the ones that affect the culture of a society, naturally involve going against the status quo and challenging prevailing wisdom and thought.
To argue that the will of the majority must always take a superior and far more important place is gravely ludicrous. Should this be an objective societal truth, and of course it is not, then no civil/human rights movements of the past–all of which that started as movements from minorities–that gave racial minorities and women equal protection under the law would have been deemed wholly wrong.
To say that being an LGBT and practicing our amourous desires is merely behavioral, therefore not warranting a right to be called a proper sector is also wrong. Being an LGBT is not a choice or a personality aspect that can be turned on or off, it is part of human sexuality as a consequence of genetics.
We are a valid minority, we are marginalized, what we are is part of nature, and since forces conspire to further deprive us of our liberties (in the name of religion and the majority), we cannot be idle. We will push back. Just like what our forerunners (in modern LGBT activism) did in Stonewall long ago.
Correction: Should this be an objective societal truth, and of course it is not, then civil/human rights movements of the past-–all of which started as movements from minorities–-that gave racial minorities and women equal protection under the law would have been deemed wholly wrong.
The difference lies in the relative permanency of race and color and sex.
It is laudable that we have laws against discrimination of women and blacks.
But to apply this to behavior-based groups such as the gay community would spell a domino-effect of a clamor of “minority groups” who also want to be freed of “discrimination”. As long as there are individuals who can claim change from homosexuality to being significantly healed heterosexuals, how can you establish relative permanency?
Nature has also proven time and time again – in species such as the Bonobo – that homosexual behavior is a naturally occuring phenomena, though not as common as heterosexual behavior.
Really – stop quoting the bible. You’re assuming that everybody else here takes every one of its passages quite literally.
We don’t
LETS LISTEN TO A MEDICAL EXPERT:
Dr. Antonio Pardo, professor of bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain explains:
“Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals… For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that APPEARS to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”
(Antonio, Pardo, “Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad”, Nuestro Tiempo Jul-Aug 1995, pp. 82-89)
Uh-huh. As if quote-mining from Conservapedia gives you an air of credibility.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to see the rest of that paper you quoted from Pardo.
if you don’t mind, can you also please show me a full paper of a credible medical doctor explaining the nature of homosexual behavior in animals?
i mean sir, why do you always label our sources as bigots and convervapedia and the like. yung sa inyo lang ba lagi ang tama at yung sa amin laging mali? dahil hindi kami umaayon sa mga paniniwala ninyo?
you know, homosexuality actually started with labels. we were labeled as homosexuals, we accepted it, and now we label other people nasty names as well.
you talk about discrimination of homosexuals. are you not discriminating as well? by calling our sources by nasty names, do you not as well discriminate us as well?
can you not practice the same goodness that you want us to render upon you? why the hatred of everyone that does not agree with you?
Grabe naman, If it doesn’t matter let it be put to a vote and give them their chance.
If they don’t count, proove it.
If it matters then do it legally.
If it is an aspect of one’ religious faith, why pass judgement on someone who you don’t know and don’t know their circumstance. Many LBGTs are religious and devout.
The government’s job it to serve ALL, and accommodate the minority and infringed. The very act of actually supporting the comelec’s decision is proof enough about the intolerance.
Why are people choosing to be so blind. I work in the family business and I know about the discrimination of LGBTs first hand, many LBGTs work for our BPO (30%) because they’re turned away despite their diploma and skills by other businesses. They have a right to be heard and to be protected against this very discrimination.
“Why are people choosing to be so blind. I work in the family business and I know about the discrimination of LGBTs first hand, many LBGTs work for our BPO (30%) because they’re turned away despite their diploma and skills by other businesses. They have a right to be heard and to be protected against this very discrimination.”
I don’t think so. Many lesbians and gays are successful in their careers in the corporate world. There are many vice-presidents in banks and other companies who are homosexuals. They get promoted and are being given opportunities to grow as often as any heterosexual person in their companies.
I think that many homosexuals when they are rejected for a job, they think that they are being discriminated when the fact is they’re just not qualified. But rather than accept that, they choose to believe that they are being discriminated. Hindi por que may diploma at skills ka, dapat ka na tanggapin sa trabaho. I myself have been rejected in numerous job applications but I never felt that I am being discriminated. But I heard more than once a fellow applicant who is a homosexual cry discrimination for having been rejected. Hindi naman yata pwede na pwersahin ang isang employer na i-hire ang isang tao ng dahil lamang sa may diploma at skills sya.
First, let me just clarify to everyone that Ang Ladlad does not just seek to represent only “gay men”. Ang Ladlad is a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender organization. I repeat Ang Ladlad is not just a “gay men’s” organization.
As a transgender rights advocate, I’d like to focus on transgender issues here.
First, let me give a working definition of the term transgender. Transgender is not a form or a subset of homosexuality or of being gay; it’s not a sexual orientation. Transgender is an umbrella term for those people whose gender identity and expression don’t fit the gender identity & gender expression traditionally associated with the sex assigned to them at birth. It encompasses a range of identies and experiences that fall somewhere in the matrix of gender diversity. This umbrella term includes the more familiar terms: crossdressers, people who prefer to wear the clothes associated to the gender opposite their gender identity; and transsexuals, people whose gender identity are opposite the sex assigned to them at birth. Non-transgender people are those people who are gender conforming, ie, those people whose gender identity and gender expression fit the gender identity and expression traditionally associated to their sex assignment at birth.
1. Transgender people are very marginalized in this country, actually even in other countries. It’s just apt to provide evidence. As a transgender woman (a woman who was assigned as male at birth), I know this very well. There are only four industries where women of my kind can have a career without being discriminated or without working twice or thrice as hard as non-transgender people: entertainment, beauty, fashion, and the sex industry. Seeing a transgender woman outside these fields is a rarity. In 2003-2004 I did a research with professors from the University of Hong Kong (”Transgendered Women of the Philippines” published in Volume 10 of International Journal of Transgenderism.) We found that: “Notwithstanding the generally high educational level, the level of unemployment in our sample was higher than for the nation as a whole, with a rate of 15.3% (for those participants who were not currently students) compared to the national unemployment figure of 11.3% (Government of the Philippines 2005).”
2. Schools, establishments, and other institutions can discriminate people based on gender identity & expression without any legal consequence.
3. In 2007 the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled against a petition of a transsexual woman to change her legal sex from male to female. This in effect make it impossible for transsexual people to have their legal sex match the sex of their brains and the sex they live everyday – we have to have a legislation for this to be possible. It’s worth noting that Spain, our colonizer for almost three hundred years and whose Catholic indoctrination destroyed our pre-colonial respect for and accommodation of gender diversity, has now a law that allow people to let their legal sex match their gender identity. Spain even has extended marriage to include same-sex couples.
4. We have documented instances where the job interviewer out rightly reject an applicant because of their gender identity & expression. Even schools reject students whose gender identity & expression runs contrary to their expectations.
5. Discrimination has a social cost. It wastes human resources. Yes I agree with you that “Hindi naman yata pwede na pwersahin ang isang employer na i-hire ang isang tao ng dahil lamang sa may diploma at skills sya.” BUT you don’t know what these companies are doing. In fact, discrimination is so blatant in this country: age, sex, height, sexual orientation, gender identity, and even religious background are being used as requirements to hire someone. These variables are totally irrelevant in assessing someone’s skills and abilities.
That’s all for now.
Your biggest error that I can pinpoint so far is that you assume that once we LGBTs pass anti-discrimination laws, we’d abuse them to no end. That is a blanket and hasty generalization with no factual or rational-philosophical basis whatsoever.
sass,
Let me answer point by point.
“1. Transgender people are very marginalized in this country, actually even in other countries. It’s just apt to provide evidence. As a transgender woman (a woman who was assigned as male at birth), I know this very well. There are only four industries where women of my kind can have a career without being discriminated or without working twice or thrice as hard as non-transgender people: entertainment, beauty, fashion, and the sex industry. Seeing a transgender woman outside these fields is a rarity. In 2003-2004 I did a research with professors from the University of Hong Kong (”Transgendered Women of the Philippines” published in Volume 10 of International Journal of Transgenderism.) We found that: “Notwithstanding the generally high educational level, the level of unemployment in our sample was higher than for the nation as a whole, with a rate of 15.3% (for those participants who were not currently students) compared to the national unemployment figure of 11.3% (Government of the Philippines 2005).””
The problem here sass is that trans-genders chose to operate outside the accepted norms of society. Surely they must have known what the consequences would be when they decided to go through sex change medical procedures. Anyway, business is in the business of making profits. Not for providing people with opportunities. They will be able to provide people with employment opportunities if they make profits. Their clients, their source of their profits and the whole point of being in business, have accepted social norms. It would not bode well for businesses to violate the accepted social norms of their clients or else they won’t be making profits. So trans-genders should try to convince society to accept them. It will be hard. They would have to break social and cultural barriers and stereotypes and biases. Society has to accept them and that’s the real challenge for trans-genders. Only then they will have equal employment opportunities with other members of society.
“2. Schools, establishments, and other institutions can discriminate people based on gender identity & expression without any legal consequence.”
Schools and institutions educate people. They have to provide role-models for their students. And sadly, trans-genders are not exactly looked upon by society as role models for the youth. Besides if it is a religious run private school then what do you expect? And besides, you think parents would want trans-genders teaching their children? Children needs to identify with their true gender. To be honest, if I see my son showing signs of homosexuality at a young age, I will do all I can to prevent that and that includes aking sure that the school where I enroll him to study provides the role-models that I want. But I will respect him as a person if all else turns futile in the end. I will respect it but I will not promote it.
“3. In 2007 the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled against a petition of a transsexual woman to change her legal sex from male to female. This in effect make it impossible for transsexual people to have their legal sex match the sex of their brains and the sex they live everyday – we have to have a legislation for this to be possible. It’s worth noting that Spain, our colonizer for almost three hundred years and whose Catholic indoctrination destroyed our pre-colonial respect for and accommodation of gender diversity, has now a law that allow people to let their legal sex match their gender identity. Spain even has extended marriage to include same-sex couples.”
Good for Spain. But trans-genders will have to work through social, religious and cultural barriers here if they want it to happen. Simply legislating it wont do it.
“4. We have documented instances where the job interviewer out rightly reject an applicant because of their gender identity & expression. Even schools reject students whose gender identity & expression runs contrary to their expectations. ”
People can still exercise preferences right? Besides as I have already said above, business are in the business of making profit. And that includes operating within the accepted social norms of their targeted markets or they wouldn’t be making profits.
As for the schools, I’m guessing this is not happening in public schools. But for church-run private schools, what do you expect? Kaya nga may ganitong mga issue tulad ng sa issue ng Ang lADLAD and COMELEC.
“5. Discrimination has a social cost. It wastes human resources. Yes I agree with you that “Hindi naman yata pwede na pwersahin ang isang employer na i-hire ang isang tao ng dahil lamang sa may diploma at skills sya.” BUT you don’t know what these companies are doing. In fact, discrimination is so blatant in this country: age, sex, height, sexual orientation, gender identity, and even religious background are being used as requirements to hire someone. These variables are totally irrelevant in assessing someone’s skills and abilities.”
True. But there is a reason why some people prefer heterogenous working environments. That is like minded people looking and aiming for the same goals. It creates harmony among themselves. There are some jobs where age, height, physique and even gender requirements are just as it is, requirements of the job, not necessarily meant to discriminate. There are cases where religious constraints of some employees hampers the needs of businesses sometimes, employees refuse to perform a certain task because it is against their religious beliefs. So it is logical for businesses who may have jobs that violates a certain set of beliefs of some religion to have preferences when it come to the religion of their employees.
When it comes to trans-genders. Yes, it certainly limits their employment options and opportunities. But that comes as a consequence of defying social norms. You can’t do something that defies the norm and expect that it would not have consequences. Gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals have less problems with regards to this because they are generally more accepted by society than the trans-genders.
darwin,
i dont understand. gays are at fault for flouting social norms? they should have not been gay (assuming they could choose) because flouting social norms has consequences?
the fact that social norms is being questioned is EXACTLY why they are pushing for political representation.
this is EXACTLY the reason/rationale for representation for a minority group — that they lack social protection, hence are looking to legislate it.
this isnt just about gay people — ALL MINORITIES, by definition, seek political representation to protect themselves…
If we continue to say that this is a civil rights issue and has nothing to do with morals, it is tantamount to say that civil rights have nothing to do with morality, which is not true.
The fact is that there can be no “civil rights” without a moral foundation.
Morality is broader than and undergirds the law. Law needs to be justified in morality. Laws that are not founded on morality have no purpose, since laws exist for the good order of society.
Fr. Taparelli D’Azeglio says:
“The moral order is the basis for society, because every duty is grounded in a moral order that results from the natural order. Now, order is the natural rule for the intellect. In the intellect, order is simply truth, and insofar as it compels the will, order is goodness”
Hi darwin25,
Thank you for taking sometime to answer my points. Let me answer them here:
1. Your view: “Transgenders chose to operate outside the accepted norms of society. Surely they must have known what the consequences would be when they decided to go through sex change medical procedures.”
Hmmm…this is quite problematic. Having a gender identity opposite to the sex assigned to you at birth cannot be characterized as a choice. Before we proceed, let us dissect that process called “choice”. Wikipedia provide a good definition, “choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action.”
To say that transgender people “choose” to have a gender identity opposite to the sex assigned to them by the doctors upon their birth is to say that they have undergone this mental process of assessing alternatives – to identify as female, or male – and then finally coming up with a decision. This isn’t true at all.
Ask yourself: Did you choose to identify as male (I’m assuming that you identify as male)?
Do you think non-transgender people choose to be non-transgender?
2. Your view: “Children needs to identify with their true gender. ”
Sir, who can identify our true gender? The church? The State? The medical establishment? Our parents? Our teachers? Or our selves?
Our brains, our genitals, are the seat of our identity. Tell me, sir, between you and other people who has direct experience and intimate relationship with that brain?
A quick glance at the baby’s genitals prompted the doctor to declare the baby female. Consequently, the baby was registered “female” on “her” birth certificate, was given a feminine name, and was raised and socialized to be a girl by “her” parents and the rest of society. However, there’s something this human being intimately knows that’s unknown to the doctor, “her” parents, and the rest of society. Something unknown even to the genitals this human being was born with. It’s something that the heart, brain, and consciousness feel and understand. It’s a feeling that doesn’t have the ephemeral quality of a physical sensation or of an emotion. It’s an innate understanding – it cannot be learned or unlearned. And this feeling and understanding are like a living truth that cannot be destroyed even by the most deadening stubborn dogma.
You are the only one who can know your “true gender”.
3. “That is like minded people looking and aiming for the same goals. It creates harmony among themselves.”
Put yourself during the time when women aren’t allowed to work at all. Will you use the same argument?
4. “There are cases where religious constraints of some employees hampers the needs of businesses sometimes, employees refuse to perform a certain task because it is against their religious beliefs.”
Provide real-life examples.
5. “People can still exercise preferences right? Besides as I have already said above, business are in the business of making profit. And that includes operating within the accepted social norms of their targeted markets or they wouldn’t be making profits.”
Yes they can exercise preference so long as that preference is fair and reasonable and is good for business.Since when did bigotry become a good business strategy? Since when did prejudice equal profits?
I don’t know which business school you’ve attended, but in my university, we’ve been shown studies proving that a diverse workplace is far better meeting the needs of the market.
6. Sir, your views are so defeatist. You kept on defending the status quo. Your line of thinking is like this: this is society’s norm, follow it or suffer the consequences. I can imagine you telling Giordano Bruno to recant and convincing the suffragist movement to stop campaigning for women’s right to vote because what they are saying and doing are against society’s norm.
“I don’t think so. Many lesbians and gays are successful in their careers in the corporate world. There are many vice-presidents in banks and other companies who are homosexuals. They get promoted and are being given opportunities to grow as often as any heterosexual person in their companies.” – Darwin25
I have direct experience to the matter because I talked to the employees and find out about their employment history as well as talk to other employers.
I don’t tell them of my TOLERANCE concerning LBGTs but many employers I talk to admit to intentionally turn LBGTs away. Relatives openly admit they do the same thing too.
Right now I’m trying to talk to my parents to allow our a certain LBGT employee, who happens to be all out best performing employee, to let her be promoted despite their fears all of what our business contacts and clients will think. provided my parents fears are justified, the fact that it is serious enough to threaten our company just Clarifies Perfectly how Serious this matter IS.
I know their stories, because I read their files and saw what they are capable of doing. I can rationally prove it is on the basis of their LBGT. I won’t play with semantics about the matter.
I also know successful LBGTs and the crap they tell me they still have to go through.
Mr. Darwin25 bring these LBGT people you know into this thread. They should really know what you really think of them.
Gabby,
“i dont understand. gays are at fault for flouting social norms? they should have not been gay (assuming they could choose) because flouting social norms has consequences?”
I’m not saying gays as they are more accepted by society than the trans-genders. Clearly the LGBT crowd has differentiated gays from the trans-genders. Sass is commenting purely on the trans-gender point-of-view so I was also commenting based on her own premise. And I’m not holding them at fault. They have been accepted by society as gays and undergoing sex change medical operation changes the equation. Society will now be have to contend with idea of changing gender.
And there are consequences Gabby, why do you think they are fighting for their rights?
when i said gay, i meant LGBT as a whole.
yes, there are consquences, and they are being discriminated against. being discriminated against is bad, from the point of view of the people who are being discriminated against, and likely for society also.
that is the POINT of fighting for one’s rights. that is the POINT of wanting political representation. that is the point for wanting to be a political party.
“that is the POINT of fighting for one’s rights. that is the POINT of wanting political representation. that is the point for wanting to be a political party.”
And I never contested those POINTS Gabby.
“3. Secularism is all good on paper until you put it into practice in a religious and fatalistic country.”
- darwin25
I suspect the “religious” and “fatalistic” qualities are closely connected with each other…
“Bakit hindi ba? Feminists are demanding that society treat women as equals to men, yet the same feminists are asking society to accord women with special treatment. Want proof? Huwag ka ng lumayo. Sumakay ng MRT. Why are there train cars reserved exclusively for women?”
- darwin25
May mga bastos na (hetero/bi) lalake kasi eh. There must have been numerous reports of naughty hands that made them do that. Meron din namang babaeng bastos… but that’s another problem. You do have a point, though. Once the anti-discrimination bill kicks in (if it does), they should rethink that policy. I mean, the lesbian/bi manyak woman would have a field day in that aforementioned train car, right?
Ryan and company, this was a very educational conversation thread, thanks. Christian almost had me convinced at some point, then the follow-up post regarding the “gay agenda” gave me pause. There’s nothing wrong with giving gay folk the same rights everyone else enjoys.
Just like herding cats, indeed. We’re all so different… and that’s good.
WE PEOPLE MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITH ONE ANOTHER, NO MATTER HOW DIFFERENT WE ALL ARE.
Anything that gets in the way of that, must go down.
You see Ryan how easy it is to debate? Gamer Joe did it. He was able to see my arguments and he came up with an intellectual post. But you can’t? Why is that so?
“You see Ryan how easy it is to debate? Gamer Joe did it. He was able to see my arguments and he came up with an intellectual post. But you can’t? Why is that so?” – Darwin25
. Good thing you cannot delete any post. I started just now and it is just too clear. You don’t need to be a student of Von Neuman to figure out you were trying to communicate. This very post just is icing in the cake.
Thank you darwin25 :D
Please continue it is quite entertaining, and please tell all your LBGT friends to participate.
Yes, we are to live with one another, but when another is imposing us to accept their behavior by setting up legal entities that would ensure the promotion of the lifestyle, I think we should think hard enough before accepting it.
I believe discrimination of homosexuals happen because of ignorance and misconceptions – primarily brought about by what mass media depicts of homosexuals, and by the direct and vicarious experiences that people have with homosexual persons.
If people have good experiences with homosexual persons, they are drawn to them in love and acceptance.
If people have bad experiences with homosexual persons, they tend to disdain and malign them altogether.
This is human nature based on the law of association.
This is not discrimination.
Again, the question is: are homosexuals really (REALLY) under-represented and marginalized in our society? Are most of them in general deprived of their basic human rights? Do they not enjoy the same rights (except those forbidden by natural law such as same-sex marriage) as other citizens of the land?
Why are you excluding the fact that they can’t marry? Forbidden… by natural law? WHAT?
They are pushing for this because obviously, THEY WANT TO MARRY. They want the state to recognize their union, as well as all the other rights and privileges that come with that. They are not asking for something the rest of the people don’t already have, nor are they forcing non-gay people to adopt their lifestyle.
Live and let live, people.
What is more puzzling with Christian’s assertion that gays are trying to impose their agenda on the public is that gays generally ask for a legal marriage, not a religious one.
And all you need for that is a judge, not a priest.
ok answer me this question…
if we legalize same-sex marriage, what is there to stop people from marrying their siblings, or marrying their pet dog, or marrying a child?
we have to accept the truth that marriage, even from the ancient times, was reserved between a man and a woman… and simple logic can be applied to that… it is because only the marital union between a man and a woman exemplifies the complementary design of humankind… only the male body can successfully and fully unite with a female body, as nature itself has designed their bodies to be such… and in this perfect union between husband and wife can procreation happen. simple isn’t it?
no intervention needed! no artificial insemination. no surrogate fathers or mothers. just a man and a woman united in marital bonds can produce offsprings in the natural order.
but of course you won’t accept that argument. you are really bent on changing the natural laws – committing violation after violation of what mother nature (or God) has created us to be.
By your logic of what marrying is about, then the elderly and sterile couples should not be allowed to marry since they are also incapable of procreating.
And besides, that’s marriage according to YOUR religious tradition. Who the frack gives you the right to pry into the love life of two people who don’t belong in your religious demographic to begin with?
Actually, not even your own church seems to agree with you completely any more – the Eucharistic Catholic Church has begun accepting gay marriage, as has the Metropolitan Community Church, as have the Unitarian Universalists.
Are these communities “untrue” to the faith because of their way of thinking?
The whole thing about this issue is that Ang Ladlad will always cry foul whenever it does not get what it wants using such terms as “discrimination”, “intolerance”, “homophobia”, etc.
One thing that I observe about the rabid gay activists in general is that they are the people who are most likely not to “tolerate” things despite being a group that demands tolerance from society.
In all fairness to the gay community, they have gained more recognition now in most places in society – politics, showbiz, business, etc., than they were a few decades back because of their outstanding contributions to their respective fields.
But for the gay community to impose their own sense of “morality” (if you can call it that) by passing laws that would accord rights and privileges on the basis of their sexual orientation and would promote tolerance of their homosexual behavior in public file is going beyond the limits already.
I say these things because for quite some time now I am very much aware of the unravelings of gay agenda in the US and how it is impacting their society. I don’t want that to happen here in the Philippines.
On the part of the Comelec commissioners, I believe they have done the right thing. You can call them all the hateful words you can come up with, but these men also have a duty to defend the greater majority of people from the onslaught of homosexual tyranny and activism.
Holy Providence, how on earth do we LGBTs cause tyranny?
So how exactly are my civil rights under threat if it obliges me to respect homosexuals as equals, and to see them given the same level of legal protection as other minorities?
please prove to me first that you are a minority.
how can you be the minority when most of the showbiz characters we see are homosexuals?
how can you be the minority when you can come up with film after film after film depicting your lifestyle and desensitizing the public about the behavior of men having sex with men?
how can you be the minority when there are news reports of homosexuals molesting the youth, or exploiting them thru internet pornography?
how can you be the minority when you can laudly and proudly parade in the streets come gay pride parades?
tell me please.. how can you convince me that you stand as a minority group?
Site first post (Alt-F and type nikolas, and scroll through it). Sir Christian, how many LBGTs do you know, have you asked them if society treats them fairly?
Don’t just ask one, ask a few. bring them here, and since your are sincere in your beliefs let them know who you are.
In my experience, Christian, I’m sure it would be nice if some of the LBGTs you personally know were here in this discussion to share to you what they have experienced. :D I’d really like to know what they would think.
Christian, you misread my statement.
I was asking how gays, a minority, can directly affect my civil rights as a heterosexual man.
And by civil rights I mean the right to be legally married, to share property with their spouse as a normal married couple would, for example.
Does giving them that right endanger my civil liberties?
Christian, you’re gonna have to be more specific – there is a difference between a homosexual, and an effeminate man, and tranvestite/cross-dressers.
I’ve seen some of these personalities you have mentioned are on TV – they’re either cross-dressing or just plain effeminate, which does not necessarily mean they’re gay.
whoa! that means a cross-dresser or transvestite may not necessarily be classified as gay?
so that means there is discrimination even within the gay community? because discrimination means literally to separate one from the other. so your statement shows that you may not recognize a transvestite to be gay.
and you’re saying that these transvestites do not belong to the “minority” group that you are talking about. tell me, how can a person be classified to be part of your “minority” group? they have to be macho-looking? they have to pass your “standards”?
but wait, the personalities i’ve been mentioning are the “straight” ones – those which the gay community used to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the indie “gay” films by creating a sub-culture of men having sex with men. i feel so sorry for these men, exploited in their youth by exposing their bodies in pornographic poses for movies that promote the homosexual life.
There is much you don’t understand about gay culture it seems.
I’m not going to waste my time here explaining it to you, if the stereotypes you just mentioned are that deeply ingrained into your skull.
i have read all the gay anthology books of danton remoto and neil garcia. being a UP graduate, i know how it is to live in a gay culture, and actually lived through it.
i have seen most gay films continuously produced in the country, like lihim ni antonio and daybreak and lalaki sa parola, seemingly breaking stereotypes and desensitizing the public on man-to-man sex.
sadly it failed to answer my questions of who i really am. deep emptiness remained despite the many years spent in the gay community.
only when i turned back to our Creator that i began to see the pieces that made me whole again.
believe me, i’ve been through the gay lifestyle and it was barely satisfying.
you may have other opinions, but this is my experience, and an experience common to many persons with same-sex attractions who wanted to be free of this cyclical sexual and emotional hunger.
glad to have seen http://www.peoplecanchange.com
I’m reposting this from my FB account. Warning: Rant.
Oh Ryan, you are awesome. Why can’t there be more straight people like you?
As for the guy you were debating with, he has his ideologies mixed-up. Its like he’s a confused Republican libertarian. Or a very very dumb hick trying to be philosophical.
I also notice that there some commenters on this post that believe that a minority’s rights can be ignored if the majority’s will is against them. To people who fall in this category, hear this. In every major Civil and Human Rights movement that has ever occurred on this planet, a minority sector, group, etc has always tried to go against the will of the majority. They do so for at many points, the majority’s will is oppressive and denies the minority’s freedom of choice and action. There is nothing wrong about challenging the status quo of any society’s morals. When it has tenets that hurt a set of people, it must always be challenged.
Then of course we come to a rather tricky empasse, on what standards do we assess the need to challenge the status quo? To put it in the realm of strict morals, a term easily conflated with religious and/or traditional morality, would be a dangerous path to take. I propose a utilatarian ethic–judging acts, behaviors, ideologies, etc based on their actual effect.
Look here. A movement that succeeds to promote and uphold liberalism would ultimately irk conservatives of every kind. But it will protect the rights of those who fell victim to conservative ideologues, affording them the chance to live freely. Whereas a movement that succeeds to defeat liberalism will of course make every conservative person and society happy–at the price of the rights and lives of the minority.
Utilitarianism creates judgements based on which act/behavior/ideology creates the most benefit. In this sense, the side of liberalism wins as the best utilitarian choice since a large bunch of people offended by cultural change, a consequence of the win, is but a small price to pay for the liberties of minorities.
And as for homosexuality itself, it poses no actual harm to anyone, barring the negative stereotypes put upon me and my kind (I am gay). Being an LGBT which just entails being romantically and physically attracted to the same sex, and eventually acting on those desires, generates no harm. People are just irked by this since it offends their sensibilities and conservative mind.
It should never, ever be conflated with pedophelia or rape. These two are abusive forms of sexual acts, that can be done by any heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality and homosexual romantic/sexual behavior, done consensually, does not involve coercion or powerplay.
I just want to say that Democracy protects all, even those with little or no voice. A true Democracy does not allow any tyranny to occur, whether it be from the elite or the majority.
Sadly, we’re only a true Democracy on paper.
Excuse me, Ryan isn’t debating me. He is attacking my personality. He is yet to present me a counter-argument.
Forgive us then, if this all sounds Ad Hominem for you. However, to present counter arguments within your language game and premise-set would be to perpetuate non-sense ad nauseum.
Reighben,
I’m raising arguments that have been raised by many debaters. Not just me.
Please point out what you think are non-sense and I will answer it for you.
Darwin25,
Your arguments, every single one of them, have been used by every American Republican and Religious conservative against LGBTs since the 1960s. All of them I’ve read and analyzed before. Not only have they been disproved at length since then, but they have also been exposed for what they are–dumb and bigoted.
The fact that they have been used ever since that point reveals that the Religious Right follows same thought pattern, where ever they hail from. It also shows that they cannot come up with arguments against LGBTs without creating negative stereotypes and using religious premises.
The same is true for every antiLadlad and antiLGBT rights person who has commented here. It is also not a stretch to claim that this is how the Religious Right and other conservative people create arguments against LGBTs rights/activism and other liberal movements–through deception and the marketing of fear.
Reighben,
You’re not answering my question. I asked you to point out which argument of mine you find non-sense and lets debate about it. It’s no sense telling me that it’s been disproved before because that is exactly what the problem is. Society is not yet convinced. And apparently, the news that it has already been disproved hasn’t yet reached most of the Filipinos.
All that needs to be said, Darwin25, has been said by every liberal on this thread. With much more eloquence than I have, I must add.
I need not say more.
The morality of an act does not depend only on the intent and consent of those who perform it; the act must also conform to moral law. Thus, the mutual consent of homosexual partners can never legitimize homosexual acts, much as the mutual consent of two unmarried heterosexual partners, or an adulterous act of two consenting married persons, can never be legitimized.
Consensual homosexual acts do hurt. The spread of homosexuality undermines public morality and the family. It “hurts” the common good of society and the perpetuation of the human race.
You see, it shows that homosexual groups are behavior-based groups.
How exactly does one spread gayness? You can’t spread being homosexual any more than you can convince a gay to become heterosexual.
Show me the studies that directly link the rise of homosexuality with increased crime rates and rape.
The only way I’ve seen it raise crime is when a gay is maltreated, beaten, or murdered simply because of their sexual orientation, and almost always by the hands of religious fundamentalists and bigots.
If there is anything that “hurts” society, it’s hypocrites like these people. Besides, when was the last time somebody flew a plane into a building because of “teh gayness?”
gay films well depict how homosexuality is a sub-culture that affects society.
young men being drawn into becoming porno models or sexy actors in exchange for simple pleasures of gay men in the showbiz industry.
teenagers being enticed by gay men by promises of money and techie stuff in exchange for carnal desires.
children being exploited by gay entrepreneurs through internet pornography sites.
gay men caught having sex in movie houses and other public places.
families being dysfunctional when gay husbands leave their wives for their male lovers.
note, some of these statements i have said are already documented by media documentary stories like gma7 imbestigador. others are experiences of my counselees. hope you can see how the homosexual lifestyle hurt society.
again, you may say, these are just exceptions to the gay population. does that mean that bad gay men do not belong to your group? what is the standard of being in your group?
please do not call us hypocrites. what have we done to earn such a name from you? i am just stating facts and philosophical arguments.
I didn’t want to join this discussion anymore because some people seem to be chasing their own tails, but I find it a bit insulting that darwin25 feels he is “raising arguments that have been raised by many debaters”. I’m pretty sure most competitive debaters can find stronger points to win YOUR side. Heck, I can even think of better arguments to refute MY side of this issue. But of course I wouldn’t do that now, would I?
I’m posting here a Facebook note I wrote last weekend. darwin25, since you’re very eager to respond, maybe you could go through this long comment and again answer some of my questions:
The key topics in this issue are religion, morality, minority, culture, equality and the law. Very hard subjects to discuss but let’s attempt to address them one by one.
The righteous gentlemen at the Comelec, as well as their supporters, headline their statement with a few of God’s purported maxims. It can be any of these lines: God hates the gays so we also hate the gays; God only sees men and women who identify as heterosexual; God will allow people to be gay as long as they pretend to be straight. Add some quotes from the Bible for “veracity” and we get a prejudiced thesis. But since this is a subject of faith, which is a personal matter to begin with, here is mine: I believe in a God who only holds the rule of love, and from this love will come forth respect toward other people. With respect there is compassion and understanding, a willingness to comprehend the unknown. Before the pious and the sanctimonious dismiss the God I believe in, please let me know: how do you justify that a discriminating God is the kind of entity mankind should believe in?
Morality in this day and age is a game of finger-pointing in hopes of determining who’s riding the high horse. To be fair, let’s consult Merriam-Webster: morality is “conformity to ideals of right human conduct”. If facts and figures are to be believed, heterosexuals are guilty of everything homosexuals have committed. We talk of volunteerism, education, sacrifice, self-gratification, pedophilia, murder, child abuse. Human endeavors that define us as good or bad people. Save for same-sex intercourse, there is not much difference between the two sexual orientations. Why, then, is there a division between the moral conducts of a straight person from that of a gay person?
Since there is not much difference between the straight and the gay, this implies that the generally straight populace has absorbed the homosexual bloc, so entitlement as a minority is not only pointless but also special treatment. True, the number of overt gay men and women might be growing, but it is not sufficient enough to influence a population into mainstream acceptance, let alone be heard by the authorities. A relatively small group of people holding voice in a public forum makes a huge difference in the exchange of ideas. This is what minorities are about: hearing and getting heard. How do you pursue acceptance, one that is honest and not just polite, without the presence of information?
The country is dominantly Catholic. We are very conservative people. The Church influences the State. This is the kind of culture we currently live in. But do these factors hold us back or move us forward? And do we want to stay dormant or grow as a nation? Not every devout Catholic holds the same principles as those of his/her peers. Heck, we even have the term “non-practicing Catholic” and God knows if they outnumber the practicing ones. Have you seen the news? Have you read the papers? We are hardly conservative anymore. We mix together a potful of cultural identities from other lands and label it as “Proudly Pinoy”. We are Westernized, modernized, globalized. Does this mean being Pinoy is living in a foreign era yet closing ourselves from foreign ideas?
“Equality among men and women” is the fight of the feminists, a minority represented by Gabriela. Why are the LGBT people struggling to be heard when they are men and women themselves? Because some people find the distinction between gender and sexual orientation difficult to grasp. To some people, we only have boys and girls. To some people, the boys-who-like-girls and girls-who-like-boys are getting the same rights as the boys-who-like-boys and girls-who-like-girls. This is true, but not all the time. If it does not happen all the time, it shows an imbalance leering toward the heterosexual. Is this a valid recognition of the homosexual? Should this be the way of life if equality is what we aim for?
And because the law only recognizes males and females, some benefit and protection clauses never reach the pink spectrum. For starters, a same-sex couple does not have the privileges granted by the Constitution to married couples. Convincing the Catholic Church to allow two women walking down the aisle is close to impossible, we give you that, but asking the State for civilian rights afforded by the majority is not tantamount to demanding for special privileges or solitary vacuums from legal responsibilities. If the law sees every individual with the same discerning eye, then why is it not applicable to every individual?
It also helps if you argue not in behalf of other people but to stand for your own ideas, like most of us here do.
Until we recognize that there is such a thing as THE TRUTH, and that this truth will never fade or wane or change, we will never be on equal footing.
Society nowadays is going for relativism – whatever is ok for you, as long as it does not hurt me (directly), is ok for me.
So what happens? Pornography business, for example, flourishes. And people continuously inundate themselves with pictures from these glossy magazines. Then some they start neglecting their duties as they are pre-occupied with it. Some now look at women (and men) differently. Then, sexual crimes start. And it started with an innocent statement of relativism.
There is a moral law. Actually there is a natural law – laws that is known even by the most ancient culture of humanity. It is innate in man to know that it is wrong to kill and to steal. And it is innate in man to know that a man belongs to a woman, and a woman belongs to a man. The existence of homosexual persons even on these ancient ages does not negate that anthropologically man recognizes man-woman relationships as the norm.
Sad to say, we people have placed our opinions of things higher than the Highest LAW that resides in our hearts. We want to place our own petty wants ahead of what really matters.
Your porn=rise in sexual crime argument doesn’t really work any more. Previous studies have indicated that there is a link between increased web activity and a decreased incidence in rape:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/
As for this moral high ground you’re espousing, well.
A recent study in the US has observed that among the biggest consumers of porn in their area, happen to fall in the red states, known for their religious conservatism.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1
Rhetorics aside, what is this “TRUTH” and “Highest LAW” that you speak of? Please explain for purposes of clarity because it seems to me that you do not value freedom of choice, which is against the ideals of a democratic country, which is what the Philippines should be.
If the entire spectrum of human behavior is as cookie-cutter perfect as you implicate, then maybe everybody will get along. But you have to realize that nothing is black and white anymore, especially in this age where adaptation is necessary for survival.
sirs, the freedom of choice that we speak about here is the freedom to do something good for the common good.
if this is not your definition, then we could speak of freedom of choice of persons who choose to kill, or to drug themselves to death, or to steal and kidnap, or to commit fornication and adultery.
the TRUTH i say here is what God has commanded us to do, which is actually written in our hearts and consciences. if we just look deeply into our hearts, we know each one of them. the church does not have to teach us, it is there. however, since we have freewill to choose, we can choose not to accept this TRUTH and create our own truths of our own.
so that means, whatever is true for me, may not be true for you. and so the idea that is passed around now is “your rights end where my rights begin”.
where there is no absolute TRUTH, there can be no absolute peace. we can argue for a long time here, because we only place our standards based on OUR standards, not looking at the one and only truth in our deepest chambers of heart.
deep inside, we know that homosexuality is not based on the original design of man. we could deny that of course, but its there. it is unchangeable.
we have to understand that in as much as there are absolute laws in the physical world (such as gravity), there are absolute laws in the spiritual world as well. denying that is like fighting the law of gravity.
“The whole thing about this issue is that Ang Ladlad will always cry foul whenever it does not get what it wants using such terms as “discrimination”, “intolerance”, “homophobia”, etc.”-Kenta
Agree!
“One thing that I observe about the rabid gay activists in general is that they are the people who are most likely not to “tolerate” things despite being a group that demands tolerance from society.”-Kenta
My same observation!
“In all fairness to the gay community, they have gained more recognition now in most places in society – politics, showbiz, business, etc., than they were a few decades back because of their outstanding contributions to their respective fields.”-Kenta
They’re good, very good. Admirable indeed.
“But for the gay community to impose their own sense of “morality” (if you can call it that) by passing laws that would accord rights and privileges on the basis of their sexual orientation and would promote tolerance of their homosexual behavior in public file is going beyond the limits already.”-Kenta
Agree! To promote tolerance of their homosexual behaviour in public life…that’s sobrang grabe na.
O’, ano? Hirit pa?
@Barny,
I am not arguing in behalf of other people. That you chose to see it that way is not my problem. That I see the reason why COMELEC commissioners rejected Ang Ladlad’s application does not mean I am arguing in their behalf. It is simply arguing that I understand why the COMELEC commissioners would do such a thing.
“how do you justify that a discriminating God is the kind of entity mankind should believe in?”
I cannot answer that question because I do not believe that there exists a god. If in case you didn’t notice, I never argued quoting the bible or any religious texts for my arguments. Maybe that question isn’t for me. But apparently some religious people do apply the teachings of their faith the letter as what their religion and religious teachers have taught them to do.
“Morality in this day and age is a game of finger-pointing in hopes of determining who’s riding the high horse. ”
It has always been that way, not just in this day and age. It’s been far worse in the olden times.
“conformity to ideals of right human conduct”.
And who determines those ideals? It’s mainly religion here in our country. To dismiss that would be a grave mistake.
“If facts and figures are to be believed, heterosexuals are guilty of everything homosexuals have committed. We talk of volunteerism, education, sacrifice, self-gratification, pedophilia, murder, child abuse. Human endeavors that define us as good or bad people. Save for same-sex intercourse, there is not much difference between the two sexual orientations. Why, then, is there a division between the moral conducts of a straight person from that of a gay person?”
Have I argued that homosexuals are immoral? I don’t think you will find anywhere in my arguments where I said homosexuals are immoral people. There are many homosexuals who are good people. Good sons
and daughters to their parents. Productive members of the society. And there are many that I respect. In fact I never argued against homosexuality at all.
“Since there is not much difference between the straight and the gay, this implies that the generally straight populace has absorbed the homosexual bloc, so entitlement as a minority is not only pointless but also special treatment. True, the number of overt gay men and women might be growing, but it is not sufficient enough to influence a population into mainstream acceptance, let alone be heard by the authorities. A relatively small group of people holding voice in a public forum makes a huge difference in the exchange of ideas. This is what minorities are about: hearing and getting heard. How do you pursue acceptance, one that is honest and not just polite, without the presence of information?”
I don’t get it. It seems to me you are negating your own arguments here. And never in any of my argument you will find that I am against Ang Ladlad being a party-list. What I said is that I understand why the COMELEC officials, where they were coming from when denied Ang Ladlad’s application but I don’t agree with their reasons why.
“The country is dominantly Catholic. We are very conservative people. The Church influences the State. This is the kind of culture we currently live in. But do these factors hold us back or move us forward? And do we want to stay dormant or grow as a nation? Not every devout Catholic holds the same principles as those of his/her peers. Heck, we even have the term “non-practicing Catholic” and God knows if they outnumber the practicing ones. Have you seen the news? Have you read the papers? We are hardly conservative anymore. We mix together a potful of cultural identities from other lands and label it as “Proudly Pinoy”. We are Westernized, modernized, globalized. Does this mean being Pinoy is living in a foreign era yet closing ourselves from foreign ideas?”
That really is odd isn’t it. That we can accept different beliefs and culture and mix them.
“This is true, but not all the time. If it does not happen all the time, it shows an imbalance leering toward the heterosexual. Is this a valid recognition of the homosexual? Should this be the way of life if equality is what we aim for?”
Let me try again. Homosexuals are now being accepted by society. But you cannot expect it to happen all the time coming from all people because we are not living in a perfect world. People will always have their own prejudices. Homosexuals claim that theirs is human nature. Well it’s also human nature to be prejudiced and we are all entitled to it.
“And because the law only recognizes males and females, some benefit and protection clauses never reach the pink spectrum. For starters, a same-sex couple does not have the privileges granted by the Constitution to married couples. ”
So then what they want is to have inheritance laws and property relations between domestic partners changed. Society can accept that. But add in the equation the issue of same-sex marriage and you will be offending the sensibilities of the majority of the population. And you can expect a lot resistance. Don’t expect it will be a walk in the park. You would have to break social and cultural barriers and the traditional concept of family and marriage, and that includes me and many other Filipinos.
“but asking the State for civilian rights afforded by the majority is not tantamount to demanding for special privileges or solitary vacuums from legal responsibilities”
True. I also never argued that homosexuals be denied of their rights. But the way people deals with homosexual would certainly change. Some people will be more accepting overtime. But people will be also extra-cautious when dealing with them. Imagine an employer who would not have problems firing a heterosexual employee except having to deal with labor issues while he would have to deal with both labor issues and charges of discrimination if he does the same thing to a homosexual. That makes for yet another double standard. One set of standard for heterosexual people and another set of standard for homosexual people. One thing I enjoy about the status quo is that I don’t need to have a reason for exercising my preference. Without fear of being sued for saying the wrong thing.
And one of the essences of liberty is the freedom to exercise preferences. Imagine being forced to not exercise your preferences for fear of being charged with discrimination. It forces you to defer preferences in other things because here before you is a homosexual who is ready to charge you with discrimination if you so much deny his/her job application or fire his/her ass for any legitimate reason or if you simply offends his/her sensibilities. We will be forced to accept a certain view of things that is politically correct for all. That you risk being labeled as a bigot for being religious or for disagreeing with a certain group of people. That you risk being sued for discrimination everytime you try to exercise your preferences. There would be thousands of lawyers who would be happy to sue you for ridiculous charges for any sum of money. Maybe Ang Ladlad is not going to abuse this but what about their constituents? As you said, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same capacity to do good and evil. My impression is that we lose a liberty for every liberty that we gain. That means, we will be taking liberties from some people so others can have theirs. Whether that is good or bad depends who is on th e receiving end of each. How do you think it will bode for those who will lose theirs?
Let me get this straight:
1) You understand the Comelec’s decision, but do not necessarily agree
2) You believe that religion determines the ideals of morality in this country, especially if the LGBT movement “add in the equation the issue of same-sex marriage” which risks “offending the sensibilities of the majority of the population”
3) You believe that “it’s also human nature to be prejudiced and we are all entitled to it”
4) You do not argue that homosexuality is immoral but believe that it brings about a “double standard”, where employers “would have to deal with both labor issues and charges of discrimination if he does the same thing [work termination] to a homosexual”
5) You also believe that “we lose a liberty for every liberty that we gain”
I admire your intellect and professionalism with the extrapolation of this issue, but this kind of backward thinking is not different from apartheid and racism. You claim to know where these government authorities are coming from yet wash your hands from the backlash brought about by it. Modern white supremacists and neo-nazis work around the same framework. They publicly frown upon these acts but harbor that very same indignation internally or within an enclosed group.
It’s alarming to hear that you feel people are entitled to prejudice. Being an intellectual person I would assume you believe in psychology, and the id-ego-superego delineation. If negative thoughts (e.g. racism, prejudice, murder, theft) are part of human nature, then why do we allow laws to restrict us? Why not just live in a state of anarchy? (Hint: human preservation) Now why is killing and stealing punished by law but not the unjust acts inflicted upon LGBT persons?
You claim to mean no harm; you just don’t want unfair treatment that might happen to heterosexuals because of the potential for abuse in the “discrimination against homosexuals” argument. Nevermind that you just underestimated the mental capacities of both the private industry and the judicial system—what bothers me most is that you think everything is fine as it is. “We lose a liberty for every liberty that we gain”, which is like saying “we have enough democracy in the status quo”. Ang Ladlad does not even want to push same-sex marriage because they only want equality in places outside the religious domain. If you can recall Rosa Parks and the African-American civil rights movement, the racial segregation in South Africa and even the Holocaust, the rights being fought for here aren’t entirely different. But I guess you value too much the security afforded by heterosexuals over the injustices suffered by homosexuals in this supposedly democratic country.
That I think is where our morality suffers.
darwin,
if ur argument is: some people dont like homosexuality, and they have reasons for doing so, then we all agree — there is disagreement about the standing of homosexuals. this is very clear, and very obvious.
disagreement, however, demands a way for differences to be ironed out. this is exactly what political representation is designed to do.
To my Liberal comrades on this thread,
I am fully convinced that the commenter “Christian” has recieved or has undergone cathechistic lessons on philosophy. His use of Natural Law as the basis of morals is Catholic in origin. The way he has used it reveals his proficiency with it. To debate with him at length would be an exercise in futulity. He is steeped in these traditional philosophies and as such, no matter how strong our arguments may be, we will never ever convince him.
The converse is also true. We are hardline liberals here, well versed in our own brand of philosophy. You, “Christian”, cannot make us cower or reliquish our stand.
Yes I know that.
I have presented the Truth as I have understood it.
I now surrender you all to Jesus as you understand Him.
You see, I was once like you. I wanted to go my way. I wanted to have fun, celebrate my gayness, just be myself.
Until I encountered Him, the TRUTH, who revealed to me who I am in His eyes – not as I see myself, or as others see me, or what public sees about me, but ME IN HIS EYES.
I found Him, the greatest treasure that I could ever have, and I wanted to share Him to you – I did not study formal philosophy education, but He shares with me knowledge that I could have never understood if I didn’t surrender to His will.
Mahirap makipaglaban sa Diyos. Pipilitin natin sa abot ng makakaya natin na palitan ang mga itinuturo Niya sa atin – subalit hindi tayo magtatagumpay.
Only when I surrendered my life to Him did I find peace.
And peace is what I share with you. I respect your stand but I hope and pray that you will respect my stand and those whom you call “moralists”.
May you find the TRUTH in your life.
God bless your searching heart.
Can we argue with him if only to prove just how intellectually barren his claims are? The man was flashing a satirical homosexual manifesto as if it were real for crying out loud!
And now it seems he has taken using quote mines from Conservapedia – the only English translations available on the net for that paper by Proff Pardo paper he picked up are on either Narth or Conservapedia.
Both sites are anti-gay.
anything that is against your lifestyle you call “anti-gay”
you ask us to respect your opinion, but you do not respect ours.
And where exactly in my writing did I say I’m gay?
Let us Be Jedis here, Twin-Skies. Calm yourself. And simply understand where he is coming from. To give in to rage, and consequently to continue to debate with him, would pull us into his philosophical trap. He will always try to conflate his language with ours, muddling the word meanings, until we all somehow argue in fits of hate. He will try to make us look absolutely intolerant, as we may come off as such in passionate debates.
We must exercise the most difficult part of being a liberal in this case, toleration of the conservative and bigoted.
Let us reserve our zeal in the real war. We lose nor gain nothing from “Christian”.
as far as i know when i joined this discussion thread, i was merely presenting facts, philosophical ideas, and even scientific studies.
and i am surprised that you just throw them away like trash, only because it does not conform to your beliefs.
is this the way of debate?
or we will just plunge ourselves in emotional frenzy.
i have stated my beliefs, defended it with philosophy and science, but you were not willing to argue through it.
i rest my case.
be assured of my prayers to everyone here in this thread.
may God, in whatever way you know him, bless you.
The reason I refuse to take you seriously, Christian, is because:
1. You used Swift’s “Gay manifesto” document as evidence for your argument. A bit of research on the net reveals that this manifesto is an intentional satire, and that you left intentionally left the manifesto’s first line:
“This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”
In short – it’s supposed to be absurd, as any good satire is supposed to be.
Just about the only people who seem to take it seriously are religious fundamentalists and you, it seems.
2. You keep insisting accepting gays will lead to moral decay in society, and yet you have yet to present any hard evidence that homosexuality has a direct hand in the increase of crime in RP. Where are the statistics, the studies, or the surveys? All you have presented is rhetoric.
In short, I will not take you seriously because you’re not putting up a proper argument to begin with.
if michael swift’s speech was supposed to be satirical, how ironic that these things are already happening now in modern “liberal” society?
we are now at an age that homosexual activities are just termed MSM men having sex with men, and people participating in them as “trippers”.
we are now at an age that does not recognize TRUTH, and instead tries to invent truth based on what satisfies their desires and what justifies their behavior.
please tell me, are there NO CRIMES committed by the members of the gay community? no sexual molestation of young people? no extortion in money laundering scams? no lies being thrown at people just to get some “scoop”? or are we blinded not to see these crimes of our brethren or maybe choose to disown these members of the “third sex” because they do not “conform” to our standards?
A few statements ago, you were claiming gays have this grand scheme to mold society in their own twisted, malicious image.
As indicated by your assertion that Michael Swift’s article is a satirical piece that should be taken seriously.
And now you’re claiming gays can molest the youth, get caught up in messy scandals, and try to swindle money from people. In short, they are guilty of the same sort of crimes a typical pinoy may commit. No more, no less
What’s your point?
I you were trying to prove that they are normal people just like everybody else, bulls-eye!
On the other hand, where is your evidence that being gay makes one a child molester?
I advice you not go this path Christian, given that most of the more infamous child molestation cases I have read of were committed by the very priests in your belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
LET THE NEWS SPEAK…
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/64792/young-male-prostitution-lotto-scam-exposed
Mga batang lalaki, nagbibigay “serbisyo” sa may edad na kliyente – ito ang ibubulgar ng Imbestigador na negosyo sa dalawang bahay sa Tondo, Maynila. Nagmistulang kasa ang dalawang bahay na inuupahan ng magka-kumpetensiyang “negosyante”. Gabi-gabi dinadagsa ng mga bakla at binatilyo ang makitid na eskinita. Tahimik sa labas, pero sa loob pala ng bahay nagaganap ang pambihirang libangan ng matatanda kung saan kinakasangkapan ang mga bata. Walang kawala sa kamera ng Imbestigador ang makapanindig balahibong eksena ng kahalayan na ginagawa ng mga kliyente sa mga menor de edad na lalaki.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/105722/imbestigador-rescues-cyberboys
Internet surfing and computer games are the favorite pastime of teenagers. They hang around computer shops, spending their free hours and extra money on cybergames. This is very common to male teenagers.
But in the province of Bataan, there are male teens who earn money while in front of computers. They are not into cybergames but are into cybersex!
Sixteen year old “Tom” is one of them. Aside from his studies, he is busy as a performer in a cyber house. He does whatever his employer or customer wants him to do in front of the webcam. He was lured into this “sideline” because of the money he would be paid. Later on however he could no longer take the sexual acts asked of him by his employer and customers overseas. But his other friends are still engaged in cybersex.
Imbestigador confirms the operation of the cyber house through an asset in the United States who poses as a customer. He got a sneak preview of the sexual acts performed by the cyberboys. After the confirmation, Mike Enriquez’ team takes action on this illegal activity – authorities and social workers swamp the cyber house and rescues the cyberboys! The owner was arrested!
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/106225/manila-mayor-padlocks-reflexology-center-over-prostitution-rap
An establishment found to be engaged in “male prostitution under the guise of a reflexology center” in Manila’s Sta. Mesa district was ordered closed on Thursday by Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim.
A team from the Mayor’s Complaint and Action Team (MCAT) headed by retired Col. Franklin Gacutan earlier raided the Blue Palm Reflexology located on Bagumbayan Street in Bacood, Sta. Mesa and arrested nine male “reflexologists” for working without the required permits.
Gacutan’s team, which included representatives of the Business Promotion and Development Office, reportedly found pornographic reading materials, boxes of unused condoms, and used ones in trash bins, bolstering tipped information that the establishment was indeed being used for prostitution.
Prior to the operation, Gacutan said Lim’s office received an e-mailed complaint regarding the illicit activities taking place in the supposed reflexology center, with male`therapists’ allegedly offering “extra services to their clients, both male and female.”
According to Gacutan, the `reflexology center had been the subject of complaints by concerned parents because it is located in the heart of a thickly populated residential area.
The owner of the said establishment, who is said to be in hiding, will be charged appropriately, Gacutan added.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/77852/elite-prostitution-scam-revealed
Pagmomodelo ang inaalok na trabaho ni Francis sa kanyang mga aplikante. Pero sa kalaunan nauuwi ito sa pambubugaw. Pinaghuhubad daw sa photo shoot ang mga menor de edad daw na lalaki at babae. Ang mga larawan daw ang ginagamit ni Francis para ialok ang mga modelo niya sa mga foreigner at prominenteng kliyente.
Masusing minanmanan ng Imbestigador ang iligal na gawain ng nagpapakilalalng direktor na nang-aabuso ng mga kabataan.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/45375/unsavory-chicharon-stolen-child
Batang Baywalk
Trese anyos pa lang si “Diego” pero nagkaroon na siya ng tulo – isang sakit na nakukuha sa pakikipagtalik. Nakuha raw niya ito sa kakatambay sa “putol na tulay”, ang tambayan ng mga kabataan at mga bakla sa reclamation area sa Pasay City. Nakumpirma rin ng Imbestigador na patuloy pa rin ang pagmomolestiya sa mga kabataan sa nabanggit na lugar.
In addition, I have noticed that our antagonists here are conservertive libertarians. Given this mind-set, they are prone to incrementalism–that is to say, they prefer waiting for society to accept liberal ideals over time. They will naturally interpret activism that pushes for cultural and social change as a negative.
We actually are pushing for cultural and social change – if it is for the common good. And common here means, everyone.
It’s written in their holy scripture, so there’s no negotiating with that. Onward, freethinkers. There’s nothing to be had here.
yes it is written in OUR scriptures…
“Where do the conflicts and disputes among you originate? Is it not your inner cravings that make war within your members? What you desire you do not obtain, and so you resort to murder. You envy and you cannot acquire, so you quarrel and fight. You do not obtain because you do not ask. You ask and you do not receive because you ask wrongly, with a view to squandering what you receive on your pleasures.” – James 4:1-3
may God, as each of us knows Him, bless us always!
Glory bee, jollibee…halleluja, my God thanks for blessing me…STRAP ME THE BOMB, I want to join you…alive, alive, a lie!
Christian,
The first three paragraphs.
And I will not cut and paste it, but…!
Sounds like there’s a pattern to this. What about the Muslims society, who commits a horrendous crime(s) for the sake of their belief. But then again, strapping thyself with 2 pounds of C-4, wiring thyself with resistors and capacitors then calling thyself using android phones, blowing thyself is a god giving will belief. Too boot, thyself are being recompense with 72 Virgins plus a lavish 72 Mansion. Is this moral and a great virtue for serving their god.
It’s not written in moslem scripture, hindu scripture, buddhist scripture, rastafarian scripture, bagobo scripture, manobo scripture, ifugao scripture.
it’s written in Christian’s scripture, so Christian thinks they are blessed, so does Moslems, Hindus, buddhists, rastafarians, bagobos, manobos, ifugaos.
But not Atheists. Atheists are blessed too, but they don’t think they are blessed.
yes we are all blessed.
we are blessed as we are able to accept the TRUTH, for which Jesus has died for us. this may be the last time i shall post, since i may have spoken enough.
it’s a pity, Christian, you ran out of good ideas. you could have convince me and BongV if you tried hard and good enough.
THE TRUTH OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCRIPTURES
Genesis 19:1-11 The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Judges 19 The Levite and his concubine (a parallel story of sodom and gomorrah – its not an issue of inhospitality)
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1:18-32 “… Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity….”
1 Timothy 1:10 “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”
********
THE VOICE OF THE WORLD TURNING A DEAF EAR ON THE TRUTH
2 Timothy 4: 3-5
“The time will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but will follow their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers who will tell them what they are itching to hear. They will TURN AWAY FROM LISTENING TO THE TRUTH and give their attention to legends. But you must keep control of yourself in all circumstances; endure suffering, do the work of a preacher of the Good News, and perform your whole duty as a servant of God.”
Jude 22-23
“SHOW MERCY toward those who have doubts, SAVE others by snatching them out of the fire; and to others show mercy mixed with fear, but hate their very clothes, stained by their sinful lusts”
********
WORDS OF HOPE FOR PERSONS WHO WANT TO CHANGE
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves – none of these will possess God’s kingdom. SOME OF YOU WERE LIKE THAT. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”
1 Peter 5: 6-10
Humble yourselves, then, under God’s mighty hand, so that he will lift you up in his own good time. Leave all your worries with him, because he cares for you. Be alert, be on watch! Your enemy, the Devil, roams around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour. Be firm in your faith and resist him, because you know that other believers in all the world are going through the same kind of sufferings. But after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who calls you to share his eternal glory in union with Christ, will himself perfect you and give you firmness, strength and a sure foundation!
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
THE IMMORALITY OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTS
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“
They are contrary to the natural law.
They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
Under no circumstances can they be approved.
***************
RESPECT AND COMPASSION FOR HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.
They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.
Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
****************
THE CALL TO CHASTITY
Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom,
at times by the support of disinterested friendship,
by prayer and sacramental grace,
they can and should gradually and resolutely approach
Christian perfection
“the TRUTH i say here is what God has commanded us to do, which is actually written in our hearts and consciences.”-Christian
Christian,
Can you not do good without somebody (your God) telling you to do good? Is goodness the monopoly of the religious? Do you think Atheists not sane enough to know which is good and which is bad? Does your God discriminates against the non-believers confining all the wisdom of the earth to the believers?
Bert,
Let’s confuse our world even more.
Our human brains for that matter.
Maybe, or just maybe we live in a [Matrix World].
Our human brains, is nothing but a subconscious collective mechanism. Nothing but a collective thought processor. And fed by electronic impulse.
For example: close your eyes and think of a beautiful rose, feel the soft petal, smell the wonderful fragrance, run your fingers on the stem and feel the prickly torns. Now, open your eyes. Do you see it, “No“, but you did imagine it.
Now with Science. It’s has to be a proven fact.
The theory was conceive, but also has to be justify.
The human brain also thinks in logic and does not settle for conscience.
It has to be presented with a true fact.
Kinda makes you wonder, are we living in a Matrix World.
Or, did some of us actually escape from the reality of Matrix.
In this case, by taking the Red Pill ( to wake up from the Matrix).
I must admit — i only peeked at this thread to find information on COMELEC-LADLAD and found myself reading every post (the good, the bad, and the ugly). I never thought reading posts in a forum could be this entertaining or intellectually stimulating.
As for my personal favorite: Reighben StrongHomo Labilles — for me she has the soundest arguements. And very eloquent! Im a fan now :)
Oh and btw, i am born a christian male; i’ve chosen to live as an atheist discreet gay. Couldn’t have made a better choice.
“deep inside, we know that homosexuality is not based on the original design of man.”-Christian
Christian,
Deep inside? Do we know that? Malalim na to-its.
What, if I may ask, do you think is the original design of man? Di ba, your God made Adam and Eve, and the two of them lived in Eden? They were the original design, correct?
How can you be sure that Adam is not gay, or for that matter Eve? Can you point to us anywhere in your scriptures stating that Adam or Eve were not homosexuals?
Can you enlighten us farther on where did you get the idea that homosexuality is not based on the original design of man?
we need not go further and see how our biological design.
see how our reproductive organs were meant to function accordingly if we are able to accept how God has designed us to be – as a man or as a woman.
kahit anong pompyang mo sa dalawang lalaki o dalawang babae, there is no body complementarity that happens. only in the God-committed union between a man and a woman does true complementarity happen.
it does not mean because we feel same-sex attractions that we were meant to be that way.
we may not have chosen to be homosexual, but we can choose to remain one or to discover anew the original design of God for a man and for a woman.
(again, i know you will just treat my argument as crap, i will let you be. and i will pray for you)
“we need not go further and see how our biological design.
see how our reproductive organs were meant to function accordingly if we are able to accept how God has designed us to be – as a man or as a woman.”-Christian
To science now.
Our biological designs, of course. It does not change anything. Homosexual or not homosexual, we are still the same…male and female. If we want to reproduce, we use our sex organ (or, we clone, some species use asexual reproduction). If we don’t want to reproduce, we don’t. Some would rather do the pompyang…their choice.
It’s a free country, (or even if it’s not a free country), heheh.
Can you point out where in scriptures does it say that Adam and Eve were in fact homosexuals? NONE
——
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Genesis 2:21-24)
so, Christian, there is nothing in your scriptures that say Adam or Eve were not homosexuals, otherwise you should have posted it already here.
Therefore, your idea that homosexuality is not based on the original design of man has no bases, in your religion, or, in science. Correct? Good.
Of course, Christian, you have your right to your own intrepretations, and I will not call them craps.
And, Christian, that your Lord God called Adam man, and Eve woman, would not imply your God’s exact idea, His original idea, whether homosexuality was actually not part of the schemes of things in the creation of man considering your God is all-knowing and can do and undo anything.
Why do you base your arguments on things that are not there in scriptures and “assume” or “suppose” that God may have slipped placing it there?
Why can’t you accept what is written as TRUTH?
For people out there who may be looking for alternatives to the active homosexual lifestyle, you may want to read through these websites:
http://www.presentsanctuary.com
http://www.peoplecanchange.com
http://www.narth.com
I post here as I am still hoping that people reading this thread will at least respect what these websites say, and not regard them as mere crap just because they do not follow their popular opinions.
I shall be praying for those who are considering a chaste life an alternative lifestyle. God loves you!
“Genesis 19:1-11 The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah”-Christian
1 Timothy 1:10 “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”-Christian
“Why can’t you accept what is written as TRUTH?”-Christian
Ok.
Christian, first, you haven’t defended yet your assertion that homoseuality is not based on the original design of man.
And then, by citing Sodom and Gomorrah in your scripture, you jumped to what your God has done to people…human beings like you and me…supposedly, by your scriptures, His creations, by a loving and just God. Ok, that’s written…the truth, you say, ok.
Your God killed the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching. In Sodom and Gomorrah, your God killed almost everybody. He mercilessly murdered the old, the young, the men, the women, the young…including the unborn…no exception.
What a loving and merciful God! HORRIBLE!
Now, do you still want me to accept your “truth”?
BTW, Christian, is your God a Maguindanaon warlord? Just asking.
Respect Narth?
Sure…on the day they stop spreading their vitriol and lies.
“November 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm, Christian says: this may be the last time i shall post, since i may have spoken enough.”
You say this after turning the discussion into your own bible study? Hilarious.
And please stop saying “I will pray for your soul”. If you really wanted to volunteer a gracious act of kindness, do you really have to announce it for all the world to read? Mother Teresa never wanted credit for all her good deeds. Just a thought before you start proselytizing again, which I’m sure you’ll continue until nobody cared to reply anymore.
Sa totoo lang, naawa ako sayo Christian. You are a victim of circumstance. You had no positive image of yourself and sexuality, you didn’t analyze the deeper sociological reasons why there is so much sadness in many LGBTs today. The sadness you went through is not a result of some intrinsic quality in being a gay man. It is a consequence of societal oppression towards LGBTs. Us, being mostly ostracized, fall into nasty cycles of depression and have little or no healthy emotional outlets. That’s why a lot of us fall into bars and such, because our immediate surroundings are not so accommodating.
I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic household. But I was fortunate enough to have liberal family members and liberal friends along the way. Yes, in many points in my life I was left out, picked on, and endlessly bullied but the open minded and open hearted people I met along the way made me into the gay man I am now. And since I developed a progressive spirituality, I believe that Providence, in his perfection, loves completely and is not bigoted like us. Now age 21, I am a happy and stable gay man, at peace with my God and the universe with a loving 2 3/4 years relationship with my live-in boyfriend (he with my family!)to boot!
Maniwala ka man o hindi, naiintindihan kita, kahit binabalahura na kita dito. Siguro if i didnt have the luck that I have in meeting the right kind of people, ganyan din ako, sisihin ko sexuality ko sa kalungkutan ko–at gagawin ko din ginagawa m, makipagdebate sa mag liberal tungkol sa mga bagay na ito.
Pero hindi eh, I was lucky. And I thank Providence for that. If you want to share your feelings and heartaches, without someone bombarding you with eternal “truths” that are neither any of them, email me at reighben@hotmail.com or text me sa 09275605282.
And as a final rebuttal sa mga pinost mo, yang mga prostitution na yan result yan ng sex-negative attitude ng society. If people are given healthy, non-repressive modes to grow and explore their sexuality, I swear hindi magkakaganyan. Prostitution, rape, molestation, all of them feed on repression, hate, and need because of deprivation and isolation. Had society been truly holistic in all aspects of humanity, all of us would be kinder and much much happier.
Reminder, before you make assumptions that one negative is intrinsically caused by something else, in this case your severely warped view of homosexuality, look first at the big picture. Uncover why people suffer and do truly harmful or exploitative acts while not succumbing to religious philosophies and observations. Try it.
So ah, peace man. Hope you find happiness and such.
Thanks Reighben!
I admire your being tactful and friendly despite our differences in opinion. Your calm attitude reflects peace that abides in you.
Yes, I do respect your views because that was where I had been when I was active in the homosexual lifestyle. Well, I had my share of fun and excitement when I was in the gay lifestyle (party, meeting new friends, dancing and cruising around with friends, having romantic relationships with men), but somehow deep within me I still was longing for something or Someone that would fill that empty space in my heart. And so I began my search for the truth.
I enrolled in MA Guidance and Counseling and began searching for answers of how homosexuality really had begun. I have encountered anthropological, sociological, psychological studies about homosexuals – and it was easy for me to just conclude that nothing is wrong with me, and that society is the one doing me injustice by not declaring my rights.
However I have chanced to encounter the works of Gerard Van Aardverg, Joe Dallas and Joseph Nicolosi – and their psychological framework made a lot of sense to me! It was a painful process of going back to my childhood and seeing that a lot of what happened to me in the past explained a great deal about the reason why I became homosexual. Primarily it was a loss of sense of male identity and male belongingness that I lacked when I was a child – I was never affirmed as a man. And I had to work through my issues – with my father, my mother, my brothers and sisters, my friends, my abusers. It was a long and painful process, but as I began to understand where my homosexuality is coming from, I was becoming more aware about the roots of my same-sex attractions and I was able to give meaning to them – meaning that broke the hold it had on me about having affairs with men.
Nicolosi says that “one eroticize what one does not identify with”. As I began breaking my shell and started making deep intimate friendships with good Christian men, I started to feel that I am just one of them – that I am no different with men in whatever way. And slowly, as I address my same-sex emotional needs and began to see myself wholly as a man, I began experiencing attractions towards women! Tearfully I was amazed! Right now, I am actively pursuing a woman in my community who knows a great deal about my past life and my current struggles. God willing, I may be happily married soon.
Now this is my story. You may say I should not push my story and generalize it to all. However, as I continue to counsel men and women facing same-sex attractions, I began to realize that my story is not unique! Many men and women struggling with same-sex attractions have similar stories, and as they are willing to cooperate to therapy and with the Lord, they themselves also experience freedom from homosexual desires. Two of the men in my group have actually been happily married now to beautiful and wonderful women!
I am not imposing anything on anyone. But I am revealing new, unpopular yet promising situations to persons with unwanted homosexual desires. If a person comes to me telling me that “I think I am a homosexual, but I don’t like being one”, as a professional counselor I could not dismiss that feeling and say “You have to just accept yourself for who you are”. I needed to journey with that person to whatever path he or she is being led to – and with his or her consent offer a life of chastity and wholeness as an alternative lifestyle to follow. Like Jesus, I would have to invite him or her and say “Come and see”. Whether they discover that this life is for them or not for them, I will be happy, because I have exhausted everything I know to help this man or woman.
At the age of 33, the Lord has showed me a lot of kindness and mercy, which I share with you in this message thread. One thing that seldom do Christians know is that the Church loves the homosexual person, asking all to respect and have compassion for them. This reflects the same respect and compassion that Jesus has for all of us, whether we accept what is written in the Bible or not.
And so I end by saying that I respect you – please show the same respect to us, persons with same-sex attractions who wanted to change and live chaste lives. Do not discriminate against our work just because it does not follow your own. We also have the right to practice and to promote the chaste lifestyle that works for us. I understand that is the spirit of the anti-discrimination bill – or does the bill only aim to protect persons who promote the homosexual lifestyle?
I am sorry if I have offended anyone by my comments. But I do stand behind all the objective statements I have made regarding what I have learned about homosexuality that popular media does not promote. I stand by the Truth of what was said.
God bless and keep your searching hearts!
This is my response to this article : http://abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/11/25/09/comelec-%E2%80%98stupid%E2%80%99-says-boy-abunda?page=2
The question when it comes to being gay or bakla… is what in the hell is normal? Is it normal for a man to have sex with a man? The Filipino being a US society copycat seems to be the basis of all this gayness. There are gays who still have the dignity to admit that their sexual preference is not normal. I salute them for being “man” enough not to contaminate the diminishing “real men” population of the Pinas. But Ms. Boy (is it Gay Abunda) to showcase you and your male co-copulator’s “lovenest” in one of your morning show seems to be the “katangahan” in the true sense of the word. Don’t try to intellectualize abnormality. It’s not a question of being biblical or moral… its a simple question of the natural order of things… where the penises are not for the mouths or the pieholes but simply for the pussies… the natural order of how you were entombed in your mother’s womb for nine months… moreover its a question of economics. WHAT IF 99 PERCENT OF THE FILIPINO MALE LABOR FORCE ARE GAYS? Paano na si Kris Aquino?
Don’t even dangle the word “homophobia” or “homophobic”… no one is afraid of gay people but a gay person himself/herself.
In terms of Spirituality, I’m just on the other side of the same coin. I’m at peace with my liberal faith, and from what you’re saying, you’re at peace with your’s. I’m afraid that’s all we can agree on.
And as I am at peace, I need not search my heart anymore.
May your brand of Faith bring you Joy.
Except that your “truth” uses little subtelty to hide its bias against a people who have don you no wrong.
exactly the same point i want to give you.
because you are also biased against us, persons with same sex attractions who want to live chaste lives, and we have not done anything wrong to you.
if you feel that expressing our own opinions here is wrong because we don’t believe in what you believe, then the bias must be on you.
again i say, i respect you… please respect us.
Hi Christian,
It is so encouraging to discover people like you! Someitmes I give in to the temptation called discouragement. Have you ever written a full blown account of your story? I would be interested in reading it.
However, please be careful in delineating the meaning of ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance.’ There is a thin thread between those two and apathy and indiffierence. The latter are unChristian.
:)
Just some facts:
Fiction: That homosexuality is abnormal comes from the observation of mating habits within the animal kingdom.
Facts: Many animals display homosexual characteristics and some would argue that it does, in fact, promote reproduction rather than hinder it, although gay interactions may not directly result in offspring. Examples can be found in bottlenose and spinner dolphins, orangutans, many whale species, bison, bonobos, bighorn rams, cheetahs, lions, hyenas, and vampire bats (to name a few) that have been found to exhibit homosexuality in a stronger sense where there is direct stimulation of the genitals between males and males as well as females and females.
Fiction: “It is immoral to use an organ in a way that violates its particular purpose”
Facts: If we were to follow this claim of morality based on the abnormality of a body parts function, smoking would be an immoral act because it was not what the mouth is intended for. Also, other heterosexual acts of foreplay and gratification that do not include penis-vagina penetration would also be viewed as immoral including, but not limited to oral sex. Corvino comments on this idea, “Unless opponents of homosexuality are prepared to condemn heterosexual couples who use contraception, or individuals who masturbate, they must abandon this version of the naturalness argument.”
I’m sorry but I just have to reply to this comment.
Can you please support the facts you have just explained with CREDIBLE research studies and IMPARTIAL expert opinions? Specifically with the fact about homosexual activities in animals. I have presented to you an expert opinion but you just treat it like crap just because it does not represent your side of the story. You mistreat a professional doctor just because he does not accept your opinion.
Regarding your second “fact”
- yes smoking is immoral in a sense that it destroys your body the temple of the Holy Spirit, specifically your respiratory tract (Warning: cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health) I have relatives and friends who die of lung cancer because of smoking.
- yes the Catholic Church teaches that the sexual act should be consummated because it must always include the possibility of giving life. that is why contraception and masturbation is also a sin.
Remember, what is condemned is the sin, not the sinner. What happens is we always unite the sin with the one who committed the sin and so we tell people that the Church hates people who sin. That is false. The Church loves sinners, but like Jesus the church loves them that they teach them the right ways and instruct them to be repentant of their sins – Jesus tells people after healing them “Go, your faith has healed you. Sin no more”. Repentance and faith is part of the healing process.
*******************
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.
This link is for Christian as an evidence in support of Pinoy Atheist’s claims on “Animal Homosexuality”
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Oh please, this is ridiculous. Since when has COMELEC had any right to reject candidates based on “morality?” How come Erap, who is openly “immoral” based on both the Bible and Koran (because of having many mistresses) was allowed to run?
One thing I feel extremely discomforting is how stifled the debate is for the side of one who believes in morality or has a religion.
Though darwin is an atheist, I sympathize with him. I often found myself being accused of bigotry or narrow-mindedness, both words are as offensive as a bigot could get. I often take care of using language and always check the arguments I use on debates whether it is just fundamentally disagreeable with the other side. For example, in arguing against the RH Bill, i never used Christian doctrine not even morality (which is not necessarily religious)! Instead I opted using ‘secular’ arguments. This is of course difficult for I am required to NOT use a truth I think is the most essential of truth, the truth about God. Nevertheless, I would not get anywhere with people if I use arguments like an evangelical. In fact I felt uncomfortable when I discovered that the Comelec used the Bible and Koran even though I believe in the Bible.
I am opposed to the gay movement (call me a bigot but this stand I took after a long time of study and discernment, it took a while to understand the philosophical and religious underpinnings of the movement). But, I am not yet sure if I agree with comelec for not allowing them to have a party list, even from a religious point of view.
And one side bar. It is interesting to note that the law is always an imposition of someone’s belief over another. We impose our belief that thieving, murdering, rebellion etc is wrong and the thief, murderer, rebel etc would not like that. A law which does not impose anything cannot be called a law.
Reading this thread, I think darwin has been the most unbigoted one here, even though I do not agree with some of his premises. In fact, I think Mr Ryan Tani has been the bigot here. Pardon me adopting the term used in this thread.
Again, I am still deciding whether I agree with comelec on not allowing ANG Ladlad to run.
But G’s analogy with ERAP is weak. It just occurred to me that the COMELEC was not really saying the people in the party is immoral but rather the interests of the party includes some immoral objectives. So ERAP may have committed immoral acts but he, as a person could not be called immoral, neither were his expressed interests and their objectives immoral.
I may be wrong here but I do not think we could apply the word moral or immoral on a being, that is if we are to be strict with our definitions. Only acts are immoral. THe immoral is not what we are but it is what we do. A homosexual is not immoral but homosexuality could (and I think) is immoral.
OK, throw in the ‘bigot’-calling.