“No, Disapproval Does Not Make Homosexuals Die Young”

https://stream.org/no-disapproval-not-make-homosexuals-die-young/

“…For one paper on homosexuality, it has taken five years for it to be retracted.

The paper, cited by more than 100 other scholarly papers, has been withdrawn from Social Science and Medicine because its results could not be replicated. What’s more, they found a serious error in coding of the data rendering the initial finding unproven.”

“This article has been retracted at the request of the authors and the Editors-in-Chief.

The reason for the retraction is that the authors discovered an error in the study, which, once corrected, rendered the association between structural stigma and mortality risk no longer statistically significant in the sample of 914 sexual minorities. The authors published a Corrigendum (Corrigendum to “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations” [Soc. Sci. Med. 103 (2014) 33–41], Volume 200, March 2018, p 271), pending a re-analysis of the data. Re-analysis confirmed that the original finding was erroneous and the authors wish to fully retract their original study accordingly.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613003353?fbclid=IwAR2MMdhM7b7snI7Iv0kMoSg_QQ_ULrccE_hqwwNIEexH9v0ewrwv-EGeQ7I

Retraction Watch:

Study claiming hate cuts 12 years off gay lives retracted

“After years of back and forth, a highly cited paper that appeared to show that gay people who live in areas where people were highly prejudiced against them had a significantly shorter life expectancy has been retracted.

The paper, “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations,”  was published in 2014 by Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University and colleagues. As we reported last year, Mark Regnerus, of the University of Texas at Austin, published a paper describing his failed attempts to replicate the study in 2016:

After Regnerus’s study, Hatzenbuehler hired a colleague at Columbia, Katherine Keyes, to try to replicate the findings as well. She found a variable coding error. Hatzenbuehler requested a correction … in September 2017, despite the fact that the error nullified the main findings. The journal agreed to simply correct (not retract) the paper, and issued the notice Dec. 11, 2017.

The journal’s editors-in-chief Ichiro Kawachi and S.V. Subramanian, both of Harvard University, told us last year:

If the findings do not stand up to peer review, we will proceed to retract the original paper.

Now, the paper — which has been cited 141 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, giving it a “highly cited paper” designation — has been retracted…”

“Once this error was corrected, there was no longer a significant association between structural stigma and mortality risk in the full sample of sexual minorities, as originally reported. Dr. Hatzenbuehler and his co-authors have now conducted the re-analysis of the data; this new paper is currently in the process of peer-review.”

The initial corrigendum: “Following the publication of Regnerus’s (2017) paper, we hired an independent research group, led by Dr. Katherine Keyes, to replicate the results of our paper entitled “Structural Stigma and All-Cause Mortality in Sexual Minority Populations” (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014). A coding error was discovered. Specifically, the data analyst mis-specified the time variable for the survival models, which incorrectly addressed the censoring for individuals who died. The time variable did not correctly adjust for the time since the interview to death due to a calculation error, which led to improper censoring of the exposure period. Once the error was corrected, there was no longer a significant association between structural stigma and mortality risk among the sample of 914 sexual minorities.“

“When Hatzenbuehler submitted the re-analyses, it became apparent to us that the new submission is not actually a “re-analysis” or “corrected & updated” version of the original paper; rather it is an entirely new study. This made their Corrigendum untenable – i.e. an author cannot publish a “Corrigendum” to a study whose main conclusion turned out to be incorrect. Hence we proceeded with fully retracting their 2014 article.“—Ichiro Kawachi

Regnerus 2017: “Is structural stigma’s effect on the mortality of sexual minorities robust? A failure to replicate the results of a published study

Soc. Sci. Med., 188 (2017), pp. 157-165″

Sisyphus’s Same-Sex Lament

I respect the legal thoughts of Filipino attorney Oscar Franklin Tan. I regularly read his Inquirer column “Sisyphus Lament”. He did have not a few thoughts on the recent Same-Sex Marriage case before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, brought about by attorney Jesus Falcis.

Here are Atty. Tan’s thoughts on it and I note some salient points. I am endeavoring to respond to these in this blog and also on his paper “Articulating the Complete Philippine Right to Privacy, 82(4) PHIL. L.J. 78 (2008)).”, which I have a .pdf copy of, unfortunately, I do not have a copy of his “Marriage Through Another Lens: Weighing the Validity of Same-Sex Marriages By Applying Arguments to Bisexuals and Transsexuals (81 PHIL. L.J. 789 (2006))” which I would be glad to devote some time to.

(1) “World’s most boring same-sex marriage case” (02 July 2018) http://opinion.inquirer.net/114308/worlds-boring-sex-marriage-case

“Simply reiterating jurisdiction would have led to an easy win for Solicitor General Jose Calida. But he surprised by doubling down, arguing that the Constitution limits marriage to man and woman (not the text itself, but briefly in the authors’ deliberations).

Calida invoked history, tradition and ability to procreate as substantial distinction. The doctrinal argument was imprecise, as in the first hearing.

Justice Marvic Leonen refuted, correctly, that such deliberations are nonbinding. Only the actual text, not these deliberations, was presented to voters. Leonen later protested that Calida was not responding to his questions and arguing in circles.

No justice probed why Calida proposed more lenient “rational” and “intermediate” legal tests, but argued language of the “strict” test such as “compelling state interest.” An “equal protection” case turns on the level of test used; the government wins if judges are convinced not to use the “strict” test.”

(2) “Falcis’ anti-LGBT same-sex marriage case” (25 June 2018)

http://opinion.inquirer.net/114157/falcis-anti-lgbt-sex-marriage-case

“Jesus Falcis v. Civil Registrar” is the Red Wedding of LGBT advocacy. In an unprecedented massacre, every justice who spoke in the June 19 hearing said that they might dismiss due to jurisdiction. Because the case jettisoned the strongest same-sex marriage doctrines, the LGBT community should prefer dismissal to having this on record.

Falcis’ cocounsel Darwin Angeles powerfully outlined a fundamental right to marry, in liberty’s broader context. His words “strict scrutiny,” “compelling state interest,” “least intrusive means” were textbook-perfect.

God of jurisdiction Justice Lucas Bersamin even put on record that Angeles did not draft Falcis’ intensely criticized petitions…”

(3) “Bizarre SC argument: Is LGBT a religion?” (18 June 2018) http://opinion.inquirer.net/113994/bizarre-sc-argument-lgbt-religion

“One cannot merely create same-sex “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” just as black children cannot be sent to separate schools, left to wonder if they were not good enough for all-white schools.

The US 2015 Obergefell same-sex decision ended: “Their hope is not to be… excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

By 2015, in Obergefell’s dissents, US reasoning against same-sex marriage abandoned old arguments and simply asked to resolve this by democratic process in Congress, not by unelected justices.”

(4) “Same-sex civil unions: unconstitutional” http://opinion.inquirer.net/79496/same-sex-civil-unions-unconstitutional (22 October 2014)

“A primacy on publicly recognizing this dignity, not Goodridge’s legal acrobatics, is now the mainstream argument for same-sex marriage. The US Supreme Court nullified the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, concluding: “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” Funny enough, after years of intense legal debate, the most compelling conclusion from Agabin, Tribe and the US Supreme Court is that simple word “dignity.” Law at the highest level is as simple as it is profound.

Even funnier, no intellectual, legal argument has gained traction against the simple word. Religious objections are out of bounds. Abstract claims of morality fail against an invocation of a human right. Inability to procreate is irrelevant as infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry and several US states allow first cousins to marry if the union would be infertile. The latest argument was that same-sex marriages must be prohibited to protect children. Last September, Judge Richard Posner threw this out, as allowing same-sex couples to marry can only avoid stigmatizing and harming the children they adopt. Note how each such argument fails to address dignity.”

(5) “Articulating the Complete Philippine Right to Privacy, 82(4) PHIL. L.J. 78 (2008)).”

(6) “Marriage Through Another Lens: Weighing the Validity of Same-Sex Marriages By Applying Arguments to Bisexuals and Transsexuals (81 PHIL. L.J. 789 (2006))”

I can sort of see what he is arguing here and how it may be disarmed with the same arguments I applied elsewhere.

Redefining Marriage: Why Not?

I would like to re-publish this in full, it’s been quite a couple of years already, but it is relevant, especially now in countries like Australia, where the people are set to “vote” “yes” or “no” by postal survey.

I will later highlight the salient points I have borrowed arguing online in the past.

“Redefining Marriage: Why Not?”

Redefining Marriage: Why Not?

Posted on 2015/05/19 by Saints and Sceptics

“Although we’d much rather discuss something else, the debate over the redefinition of marriage continues to hold the public’s attention. Furthermore, it does not seem that the case for the traditional definition of marriage can even receive a fair hearing. Is it so ridiculous to suggest that we need an institution which insists that our children matter more than we do? Have we completely lost sight of the connection between sex and procreation? After all, there is a rather strong correlation between having a child and having had sex; there is an even stronger correlation between being human and having a biological mother and father. Whatever the case, it seems that the secular world does not understand the traditional view of marriage. So, we hope that these “Quick Points” might shed a little more light than heat, help others understand our position a little better and demonstrate that it is possible to rationally disagree with the arguments for same-sex marriage.

1) The traditional, or conjugal, view of marriage is that marriage is the exclusive, lifelong, sexual and personal union of a man and a woman.

2) The argument for the conjugal definition is quite simple: if there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships. Put another way, the traditional view of marriage recognises the basic facts of life: that sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. We cannot escape the fact that sex aims at procreation. Therefore, society has encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation. That’s the point of marriage. 

3) Marriage gives sexual relationships a very definite purpose: to create a union which can create new life and support new families. It is astonishing that we have to remind people of this; but humans naturally seek to reproduce and nurture their children. Marriage aims to order those instincts to a specific end. Marriage is an institution which places normative demands on sexual partners so that children will be raised by parents who will stay together for life. 

So this is not a debate about “marriage equality” : it is a debate about redefining the nature and the purpose of the institution of marriage. 

“Historically, and, in my view, rightly, marriage has been understood as the distinctive and distinctively valuable form of human association that is oriented to procreation and would naturally be fulfilled by the spouses’ having and rearing children together. It is a comprehensive (and thus conjugal) bond inasmuch as it unites persons not merely at the level of hearts and minds, but in the bodily dimension of their being as well. In this way, it differs from ordinary friendships and other non-marital forms of companionship. And it requires commitments of exclusivity (“forsaking all others”) and permanence (“till death do us part”).” —Robert P George

4) Sexual relationships between men and women produce children; children naturally desire a loving relationship with their biological parents; biological kin find it easier to form deep emotional bonds. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship.For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for marriage.

5) It makes sense, then, that our laws should seek to honour, promote and defend exclusive, life-long partnerships between men and women. This is why marriage has been promoted as desirable and honourable relationship.

Of course, sex can be pleasurable and the requisite for reproduction. But this intense attraction to one another over time serves perhaps an even larger purpose. Blankenhorn notes it is the couple’s ongoing emotional entanglement and interest in one another that helps to create the couple that will raise the child. Ongoing sexual interest brings the father into the mother-child dyad. It promotes bonds between parents. It helps to establish a particular family structure: a lasting pair bond that bridges the sexual divide and creates fathers for children. “Mother Bodies, Father Bodies How Parenthood Changes Us from the Inside Out” (Institute of American Values)

6) Furthermore, while marriage is the best way to bring children into the world it also serves other deep purposes. It is the nucleus of a new family and a linchpin which connects two wider families together in the task of raising the next generation. The ceremonies surrounding marriage remind us of the power and responsibility of sexuality – that sex is not only for pleasure or affection, but for creating new life. Marriage recognises the importance of sexual complementarity; it is for so much more than celebrating a couple’s love or solidifying their commitment.

“What made marriage unique was the way it brought together in a single institution a whole series of essential human activities: sex, reproduction, companionship, love, responsibility for the welfare and nurture of those we have brought into being, and responsibility for their education.” —Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

7) It is a bad idea to have a law which would replace “fatherhood” and “motherhood” with “parenthood.” The institution of marriage recognises that – in the absence of cruelty or abuse – a child naturally desires to have their father and mother in their lives.

8) The conjugal definition of marriage precedes Christianity and developed independently of Judaeo-Christian tradition. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophanes, Musonius Rufus and Plutarch all accepted definitions of marriage that excluded same-sex relationships. They did so in societies that tolerated (and even promoted) same-sex relationships, so their arguments cannot be attributed to “homophobia” or dismissed as the products of religious bigotry.

9) Everyone has a definition of marriage which prohibits certain people from marrying. For example, most societies will prevent close blood relatives from marrying (even, say, if the couple are too old to have children). Every society places age restrictions on marriage. So it is not intrinsically oppressive, or even illiberal, to hold a definition of marriage which excludes certain relationships in principle.

10) Those defending the traditional definition of marriage often point out that we would not marry siblings or those in polyamorous relationships. This is not to argue that homosexual partnerships are morally equivalent to such bizarre sexual bonds! Furthermore, very few would want to enter incestuous or polyamorous relationships, even in the most permissive culture. Therefore, it is very unlikely that there will ever be public pressure to recognise such relationships. This is not to argue from a feared slippery slope.

Everyone is in favor of marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way that one can know whether a law is treating marriages equally is to know what a marriage is. Every marriage law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what is not a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle and are to reflect the truth, one must know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting-adult relationships. —Heritage Centre

11) It follows from point 10, however, that everyone acknowledges that mere attraction and romantic love are not enough for marriage.

12) It is also worth pointing out that if marriage was merely about celebrating love and commitment, there would be no logical, principled reason to forbid polyamorous marriages or to forbid those in incestuous relationships from marrying (provided that they would not have children with each other). To repeat, this is merely a point about the logic of the revisionist position; it is not a prophecy about the social consequences of redefining marriage!

13) The point in 10 is that by reflecting on the types of relationship that everyone would exclude in principle from marriage, we can clarify the purpose of marriage. Incestuous and polyamorous relationships are not suitable for marriage because they are not the types of relationship which are suitable for procreation.

14) This does not mean that marriage exists merely to make babies! In the absence of cruelty or abuse, children desire their parents to be deeply, permanently committed to one another. The lifelong union of a man and a woman provides a linchpin for holding a family together. So any life-long, permanent, exclusive union between a man and a woman meets the requirements of marriage; a man and woman in such a relationship could wish to have (or wish that they could have had) children. Sex, romance, affection and love create a couple who could, in ideal circumstances, create and raise the child. Any such relationship is an instance of an ideal which society should honour, protect and promote.

15) If we legally redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, the law will no longer recognise it as a social institution designed to create and nurture and love the next generation. “Marriage” would have no other purpose than to compel society to respect romantic love. Marriage would no longer be a covenant between the generations; it would be little more than a contract between consenting adults; a contract which could (or even should) be terminated when one partner ceases to find that relationship satisfying.

Marriage connects people and goods that otherwise tend to fragment. It helps to connect sex with love, men with women, sex with babies, and babies with moms and dads. Social, cultural, and legal signals and pressures can support or detract from the role of marriage in this regard. —Heritage Centre

16) Churches and some religious organisations might be granted “exemptions” from performing same-sex ceremonies. However, a revision in the law would compel many people to honour and recognise a new form of relationship in their public lives, no matter what their spiritual or moral convictions are. This law would tell Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Christians that they are wrong: sex is not for the creation of new families, but can have whatever meaning we attach to it. In the long run, some loss of religious liberty is inevitable.

17) In a civil society religious freedom means more than an exemption from having to perform certain ceremonies – eg. same-sex marriages – for the state. It includes the freedom to publicly express and rationally defend one’s most fundamental ethical concerns. Yet the rhetoric which drives the campaign for redefining marriage does not reassure religious communities. Politicians can casually compare those who defend the traditional definition of marriage with those who imposed apartheid on South Africa! If support for conjugal marriage really is equivalent to racism then the state has a duty to drive it from the public square.

18) Proponents of “gay marriage” argue that the traditional definition of marriage grants some couples rights which are withheld from same-sex couples. Examples cited include the right to time off work to care for a spouse or the right to be considered next of kin for emergency medical decisions. One reply is that states could easily grant these rights through civil partnerships. In any case, no-one is arguing that we should extend the rights of married couples to those living in stable, loving, non-sexual relationships.

It is too easy to forget that sexual partnerships are not the only form of family life. For example, siblings can live together in a domestic relationship; an elderly parent might live with one of their children. Indeed, such domestic relationships can exemplify admirable qualities, can be socially beneficial, are surprisingly common, and can provide suitable environments for fostering and adoption. However, they are not marriages and should not be equivalent to marriage in law.

**********

Same-Sex Marriage Ideas: Ireland to Australia

Just looking back at resources from the Ireland experience of the same-sex marriage referendum, I saw some commentary.

Ireland’s problem, which is now facing Australia (postal plebiscite), was that the referendum was voluntary. Only 60% turned out to actually vote, hardly representative of the population, but as many elections are anyway. Australia had a golden opportunity because elections are compulsory, but alas, with the postal plebiscite, it is only voluntary, hardly a referendum and not even a vote but a survey, like a research badly done by snowball sampling. However, regardless, it’s all go from hereon, and we’ll see then which team can muster the masses.

Same-Sex Marriage, Iona Nonsense and the Constitutional Convention (19 April 2013)

http://bocktherobber.com/2013/04/same-sex-marriage-iona-nonsense-and-the-constitutional-convention/ wrote:

“Lolek Ltd recently made fools of themselves by promoting a puerile video rubbishing same-sex marriage on the grounds that every child deserves a mum and a dad.  (Aside: when I was growing up, kids had mammys, not mums.  How did that change?)  The logic of the video was so faulty that I seriously doubted it could have been produced by an organisation boasting Prof Vincent Twomey as one of its “patrons”.  Perhaps, I thought to myself, the good Professor simply held his nose to avoid the smell of bullshit, but then I remembered that the man is a professor of Moral Theology, or as it’s also known, Stuff We Made Up.  Twomey, incidentally, wrote the following ludicrous exam question for Hibernia College: atheist humanism produced the worst horrors history has ever witnessed.  Answer Yes or No.

Health warning.  Here’s the Lolek Ltd video about same-sex marriage.  You don’t have to watch it.  Skip it if you like since it’s only fluff anyway, though it does offer an insight into the mindset you’re dealing with.  But if you do watch it, and if you happen to suffer from a cardiac problem, please don’t blame me if the outcome is bad.”

There was not in those paragraphs anything that actually demonstrates that “the logic of the video was so faulty”

They even came up with a parody, and as most parodies, dismissive and failing to actually engage:

The problems with the parody:

(1) Failed to distinguish or clarify “discrimination” or to at least say how wrong the definition was to the original video.

(2) Failed to demonstrate why man-woman relationships aren’t special – that society protects this relationship because of its direct, potential fruits, the next generation of citizens. Here they fail to actually demonstrate that there is no difference in heterosexual and homosexual relationships but instead launched into the fallacy similar to historical snobbery by saying this kind of thinking is passe.

(3) They can’t really equate changing gender roles and vocations to fixed biological roles determined by gametes the male and female organisms produce that makes them co-dependent on reproduction or the bad word in all this – “procreation”.

(4) European rights and the UN? Yes, why can ‘t we suspect them? Countries rule themselves, not intergovernmental bureaucracies voting on another’s sovereignty. Yes, the UN can be wrong and it has been many times.

(5) Top medical experts – science can be highly politicized, even way before the time of Galileio. See my other posts on the state of research on this topic.

(6) Dog – God snide? Petty puppy.

(7) America – yes, foreign sponsors in all sorts of causes not just against same-sex marriage, but more for support actually. The boot is also on the other foot. In Singapore this has been the case with the Pink Dot movement to decriminalize sodomy:

The Government has made clear its position on foreign support for Pink Dot, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Thursday (Jun 15) in response to queries about a letter by several foreign companies asking the Singapore Police Force for permission to support the event this year.

“We would like to reiterate that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence events that relate to domestic issues, especially political issues or controversial social issues with political overtones. These are political, social or moral choices for Singaporeans to decide,”

And so, yes, the rest of the post is just more about the Iona Institute.

One commenter wrote:

“Hello Bock, I don’t know anything about the Iona Institute, but surely you do not have a problem with a group of people coming together to try to promote a particular political ideology, this is after all the basis of democracy, anyway that said, you do of course have the right to disagree with them. The problem with this stuff is that the people on one side of the debate are essentially trying to redefine or undefine “Marriage” We live in what has been a Christian country for over 1500 hundred years and most people’s idea of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, who, after they get married become a husband and wife. Can a man be a wife? I don’t think so. So rather than trying to redefine marriage could we not leave “Marriage” as it is and coin a new term for gay marriage, I have already suggested “Garriage” as a possible contender. This would seem to me to be the perfect solution. if the term came to be approved it would avoid potentially embarrassing situations for both the gay couple and people to whom they are being introduced, also the term sounds enough like the other word that certain music hall songs could be easily adapted by the gay community. “I’m getting garried in the morning, ding dong the bells are going to chime” is one that comes to mind. The real problem with this entire debate is that it is being used by the Labour Party as a diversion to their disastrous performance in Government where they have shamelessly shafted everyone who voted for them, both straight and gay alike.”

Until it became about politics he was sort of spot on, he went weak on that “Christian country” reference because it is more than just about tradition. As Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent in Obergefell wrote:

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”

It’s about the adults but it is also always about the state understanding that these opposite sex adults intentionally or unintentionally give rise to children and we need them to stay married, to rear those kids into good citizens. The argument for the traditional/natural definition is simple: “If there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation, and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships.” The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection, and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation between sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so. Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and supports new families. That’s the point. To those who say that a redefinition of marriage does not affect anyone at all (except those who are seeking to ‘join’ the institution), be not mislead. Chief Justice Roberts, during the April oral arguments for Obergefell said “you are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite sex relationship, and you want to introduce to it a same-sex relationship.” So, does civil marriage, for the purposes of the state, infringe on any fundamental human right? That is the legal question Obergefell tried but miserably failed to answer and it has even turned the US Constitution on its head doing so. Apparently, it does not. Treating something essentially unique as marriage in a unique way is not discrimination. Therefore, we are not, in effect, denying the same rights to LGBTs when we treat a unique institution such as marriage in a unique way for the purposes of the family and state. Marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anyway. They have a disparate impact on gays, certainly, but that is not the court’s test. Marriage laws do not discriminate based on orientation is that they simply do not require checking someone’s orientation at all in determining whether that person will receive the benefits of civil marriage. Thus, under man–woman marriage laws, a gay man may marry a lesbian woman, while two heterosexual men cannot receive a marriage certificate from the state. “Marriage equality” as I maintain elsewhere is another misleading, if not outright deceptive, slogan, people seem to blindly follow this too because it is an unacceptable kind of reasoning. Do we really think that one-man-and-one-woman relationships are equal with one-man-one-man, two-men-one-woman, three-sisters, ten-brothers, one-man-and-a-harem? With respect to the State purpose of civil marriage where new citizens are natural fruits, and in view of a strong and orderly society, there is no comparison here. The most robust studies consistently show that children do best when a mom and dad are present. Why should we as a society desire otherwise? We shouldn’t let the exception become the rule and effectively depriving innocent children of their right to both a mother and a father; surely, we have single parents taking care of children, not by circumstances they chose, and as some say “children tend to turn out okay”, it’s not quite enough that they “turn up okay”, but we must, as a society, do our best to provide a baseline for ensuring a fighting chance, that means, the gold standard of an environment, cetris paribus, for future citizens to grow and be nurtured into. Before US president Obama, so-called “evolved” on this issue, back in 2008 he said “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

 

“Not Supported by Scientific Evidence”: Two Recent Studies

Two recent gender and sexuality studies present jarring results to LGBT advocates. 

(1) Sexuality and Gender
Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences
, August 2016

Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D. and Paul R. McHugh, M.D.

Click to access 20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

(2) Dr. Lisa Diamond, APA, October 2013

“Lisa Diamond discussed her research on the fluidity of same-sex and other-sex attraction, and the similarities and differences in patterns of fluidity between men and women, Oct. 17, 2013 as part of the Human Development Outreach and Extension Program. Diamond is a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah.”

http://www.cornell.edu/video/lisa-diamond-on-sexual-fluidity-of-men-and-women

The Discussion (verbatim from the study):

(1) Some key findings: 
Part One: Sexual Orientation

● The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that way”—is not supported by scientific evidence.

● While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attrac- tions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.

● Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).

● Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.

Part Two: Sexuality, Mental Health Outcomes, and Social Stress

● Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual sub-populations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.

● Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety dis- orders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

● Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender indi- viduals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.

● There is evidence, albeit limited, that social stressors such as discrimination and stigma contribute to the elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes for non-heterosexual and transgender populations. More high-quality longitudinal studies are neces- sary for the “social stress model” to be a useful tool for understanding public health concerns.

Part Three: Gender Identity

● The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a woman trapped in a man’s body”—is not supported by scientific evidence.

● According to a recent estimate, about 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex.

● Studies comparing the brain structures of transgender and non-transgender individuals have demonstrated weak correlations between brain structure and cross-gender identification. These correlations do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification.

● Compared to the general population, adults who have under- gone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

● Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.

● There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification. There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.

(2) With the help from: https://www.peter-ould.net/2014/05/25/lisa-diamond-male-sexuality-more-fluid-than-we-thought/

“Diamond concludes (37:27) that: 

● Fluidity in identity, attraction and behavior is NOT specific to women but a general feature of human sexuality, one which is also confirmed by historical and cross-cultural literature; 

● The various sexual categories currently in use (LGBTQI, etc.) are useful heuristics (mental shortcuts, rules of thumb, educated guesses or stereotypes), but though they have meaning in our culture, we have to be careful in presuming that they represent natural phenomena (38:55); and…

● It is tricky to use these categories for advocating rights based on the concept of immutability now that we know it is not true. As a community, the queers have to stop saying: “Please help us, we were born this way and we can’t change” as an argument for legal standing. (43:15)

SolGen asks SC to junk ‘intrinsically flawed’ same-sex marriage bid

I got interested in the recent comments of Solicitor-General Florin Hilbay on the Same-Sex Marriage petition to the Supreme Court of the Philippines by Atty. Jesus Falcis III.

Here are the articles that published the comments of the Solicitor General:

SolGen asks SC to junk ‘intrinsically flawed’ same-sex marriage bid

Same-sex marriage plea disputed
I got interested in these comments on another article I responded too, my discussions for this article are down way below:

SC asked: Allow same-sex marriage in PH
The 31-page petition highlights the need for a more LGBT-inclusive society and is the first known and reported legal action of its kind before the Philippine High Court

Jess Lopez: Thumbs up. However, i don’t think the SC will hear it because there has been no actual case of a gay couple asking then being denied a marriage license.

Neil Gonzalo: I think he invoked transcendental importance to bypass the justiciability/actual case or controversy requirement.

And so I wanted to know about “transcendental importance” and so I asked another commenter from one of the articles above:

Sam DeAsis: I think another clear-cut arguments for the outright dismissal of this case is that: the case is not ripe yet because petitioner did not apply yet for a marriage license and was denied; the petitioner lacks standing because he did not suffer any injury nor denied the equal protection of the law because of his being gay; and his grievance or cause of action is general and of course, wrong court and party. As a lawyer, this guy should know what a pleading should contain at a minimum to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Same sex marriage should not be allowed in Pinas. Let’s not be a copycat. After ‘same sex’ what’s next? The right to marry your dog because you love your dog and your dog love’s you too? Sodom & Gomorrah na. God forbade!

Pepe: Hi Sam. I heard someone said that Falcis invoked “transcendental importance” to bypass the justiciability, actual case, or controversy requirement. Is that a legitimate avenue? Thanks!

Sam DeAsis: I think the allegation of ‘transcendental importance’ is even harder avenue to confer standing on petitioner because it is a nature of general averment to redress a perceived harm to the general public as opposed to actual or imminent danger of being harmed. Said the SC: “Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic question to satisfy scholarly interest therein, however intellectually solid the problem may be.”

He should have first applied for a marriage license and if denied he has already a cause of action and standing. But he will still lose because of constitutional/codal provisions which state that marriage is essentially between man and a woman only. IOW, only amendments can override it.

Pepe: I see. Thanks, Sam. I think we are in the same boat here. But consider my response to this whole thing (including Obergefell), just to bounce off you my thoughts and tell me what you think:

“Our laws are clear. The Family Code only recognises the marriage between a man and a woman,” presidential spokesman Herminio Coloma Jr said on June 26. “Same-sex marriage by Filipinos in a foreign country will not be recognised in the Philippines.” He said the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.”

Like in the US and elswhere, Atty Falcis is asking the Supreme Court to re-define marriage from it’s common sense meaning evident in the Family Code.

“Falcis… argued that limiting civil marriages and the rights attached to these unions to heterosexuals violates…”:

1. “the constitutionally guaranteed protection for equal treatment”
Chief Justice Roberts dissent in Obergefell, quoting Justice O’Connor in Lawrence v. Texas, he argues that “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ legitimate state interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” In fact the only reason why the state is interested in marriage is because wheter intentionally or not, children (new citizens) come from a complementary sexual union of a man and a woman. Thus, the state understands that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. By this, the state recognizes the right of a child to be nurtured by those responsible for her existence.

2. “undue interference to liberty rights”
Justice Thomas in his dissent states how wrong liberty was understood by the majority opinion. He says “in the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” Taken to mean privacy and noting precedents, Chief Justice Roberts notes that “the privacy cases [such as Griswold, Lawrence] provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State.” Claiming marriage to be an “undue interference to liberty” and yet seeking to join this institution is wrongheaded and absurd.

3. “and marital autonomy”
So which one is it really? You want the government out of the marriage business, by asserting autonomy (self-governance with respect to marriage) and yet you want in that very same state-sanctioned institution? These are contradicting claims as well as some noted that in the sloppy SCOTUS majority opinion maintains an “antiquated view of marriage” as something like a magical nobility and dignity-conferring spell, as if their constitution has a clause on it let alone government grants these (Justice Thomas), “utterly disconnected from the realities of America today” moving towards “a post-marriage future.” Others note it’s odd that all the same leftists who think marriage is an evil patriarchal institution want its “dignity” extended to gays and lesbians.”

The Family Code states in Art. 11: “Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following:…(3) Age and date of birth; (4) Civil status; (5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled… ” and Art. 35 (4) “Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41.”

In effect, the Family Code discriminates against (3) minors getting married, (4) (5) and Art. 35 (4) already married person who may love another – polyamory and adulterous relationships, regardless of how much love these consenting adults have.

Also, in Art. 37: “Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate…” and Art. 38 enumerates not only consanguinity but even non-blood-related (illegitimate) persons, the code considers it incestuous.

In effect, the Family Code in Art. 37 discriminates against incestuous relationships, regardless of how much love these consening adults have.

To summarize, in effect, the Family Code, brought to the logical conclusion of Atty Falcis’ claims, violates “the constitutionally guaranteed protection for equal treatment, undue interference to liberty rights, and marital autonomy” of not only LGBT but persons in incestuous, adulterous, polyamorous and polygamous sexual relationships. This is an inescapable conclusion that follows from a ruling like Obergefell.

Once again, Chief Justice Roberts catches the SCOTUS majority opinion in this saying: “Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfilment in polyamorous relationships?”

Now, we do recognize polygamy (with mutual consent) and almost-child marriages with (minimum 15 years old, with parental/guradian consent) in the Philippines when our country recognized Shari’a Law with PD 1083 of 1977 for our Muslim countrymen. This did not extend to Mormons though and it does not apply to the rest. The Family Code enshrines this existing law in its Art. 33.

Atty Ferdinand Topacio proposed amendment to the Family Code based solely on Art. 147 (common law marriages and cohabitation) to expand the law. Note that here he is arguing for same-sex civil unions for the “recognition and acceptance by the law of such type of relationship – the protection of the civil rights of the partners in a same-sex relationship as it pertains to assets and properties that may have been accumulated during such coverture.”

Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent parallels this idea of a narrow ruling saying:

“It is important to note with precision which laws petitioners have challenged. Although they discuss some of the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal status on official documents, petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically.

The equal protection analysis might be different, in my view, if we were confronted with a more focused challenge to the denial of certain tangible benefits. Of course, those more selective claims will not arise now that the Court has taken the drastic step of requiring every State to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples.”

Finally, and interestingly, the Family Code does not include, in Art. 11, Art. 35 etc, a prohibition based on gender, obviously because it already deems common sense, that marriage is between a man and a woman: “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation…”

So I think we always have to be clear what we mean when we say “marriage” that it is, as the state recognizes for its purposes, a life-long union of one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. The state recognizes that more than just a unique biological union that produces new citizens, it is best environment in which these new citizens are nurtured, and the people, through the state, do not and should not want anything less.

Sam DeAsis: Scholarly done, Pepe! I am reminded during the Alecks Pabico’s days (he’s resting in peace now) at PCIJ Blog with him as moderator. I was then a regular ‘poster’ (under another name and we communicate directly in the sidelines) when a topic interest me. With Alecks’ passing and Shiela Coronel’s acceptance of deanship of Columbia University’s journalism school, PCIJ has been “orphaned” of its ‘father and mother’ and went ‘adrift’ and like many, I left too. How I wish that posters are guided by a desire for the enrichment of knowledge through the free exchange of ideas rather than bashing each other just because opinions collides.

I have nothing more to say except that I think Coloma’s statement is not clear about same sex marriage of Pinoys abroad. He should have made distinction whether the Pinoys are already citizens abroad or not. I think when Pinoys became citizens of say, U.S. and married in a State where same sex marriage is valid, the Philippines has no option but to recognize because they are no longer Filipino citizens. However, there is a legal issue if they avail of R.A. 9225 or Dual Citizenship because they become Pinoys again and should be bound by Philippine laws. What shall we do then? Shall we retract the recognition or treat them as mere ‘union’ only instead of marriage?

As regards Shari’a Law marriages- I’m entertaining notions to be a Muslim once I hit the lotto. I can then marry four or five young women!

Pepe: Thanks Sam! Wow, you worked with PCIJ before! Salute! Your comment on Coloma’s statement is interesting to me: “the Philippines has no option but to recognize because they are no longer Filipino citizens”, I’d ask though, under what conditions or circumstances will the Philippines be “forced” to recognize a same-sex marriage? It certainly would not be necessary for incorporation and business setup, maybe if they are on a working/employment visa here i.e., non-immigrant visas and quota immigrant visas, or perhaps in buying property? (But the 60-40 economic provisions of the constitution may need to be amended first for US citizens to be able to purchase land, and I think even in that case, we may have other ways out, such as treating the relationship as business partnerships instead). LOL on you and Sharia Law marriage wish!! But I realized that it somehow already created a hole in the laws and provided a special treatment of a certain group of citizens in order to tolerate/respect a Muslim way of life. I’ve always thought, that’s really what LGBT activists want: special treatment, no matter how much they say it’s just “marriage equality”; and more insidiously (my opinion, and other international gay activists have admitted), the objective is to dismantle the institution itself, that makes the content of Obergefell–all those paeans to dignity and human rights conferring power of romantic love–hypocritical at best. Anyway, thank you very much for your time, Sam!

Other articles related to this are:

SC same-sex marriage petition: First step in a long road ahead
As long and as difficult as this road may be, the journey has already started for marriage equality in the Philippines
To which I responded:

Thanks for your opinion, Shakira! Appreciate that these events open the discussion for everyone. What is ‘marriage’ after all, right? We do have different ideas and we are all free to express it. The slogan “Marriage Equality” seems vacuous and misleading. Equality of individuals, regardless of sexual orientation is a no-brainer, everyone is equal, individually. However, when it’s about marriage, are we even sure that gay couples, polyamorous/adulterous setups, incestuous couples, are “equal” to the traditional one-man-one-woman relationships for the purposes of the state (which is interested only in the natural fruits this traditional setup produces – new citizens)? So, in this sense, asking for same-sex marriage is tantamount to asking for special priveleges, not equal rights. We cannot really say that “no compelling state interest exists to limit civil marriages to opposite-sex couples” when it’s nothing more than pushing for recognition of a particular adult relationship of our choice.

I see/hear “Separation of Church and State” too often when it’s really irrelevant. The Catholic Church is a private organization pushing for their opinion on state laws just as much as any other “rah-rah” group out there in Mendiola. You and I may not agree with their opinion but it is just as their right to lobby government as much as we can.

True, that in the RH Bill we saw “bigots and religious fanatics among our lawmakers”. But the existence of such “most ridiculous” comments from BOTH sides doesn’t deny sound arguments, though in the minority, against what is being pursued now and back then. I can only hope we all open our eyes and see beyond ad hominems etc.

“Evolve or become obsolete” that’s terrible, right? But then again, of course we have differences in our opinion of what “progress” looks like. After all, the so-called “Dark Ages” wasn’t really. It was just a pejorative term used with much bias in the 18th Century. “Which side of history” is another complex question, we all hate being the “bad” guys, right? But, those who show tough love may have also been considered “bad” guys of history. Some may never even be vindicated. But yes, that’s a cost to holding to the ideas you deem correct and hold true. These come off as petty rhetoric when we examine deeper the issue at hand.

It is the duty of the parents to teach the next generation “who will inevitably lead this conversation when it eventually comes to a head” about critical thinking and I can only hope these “children and teens” will learn to see through the noise and rainbow ruckus. Mrs Clinton is right, laws do have a teaching/pedagogical effect and it can teach the wrong things as we have seen throughout history, after all, ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences and so we must tread very carefully and examine issues beyond ultimately empty slogans.

It is good that we are talking about it and I agree these “discussions cannot be silenced”, not even by ad hominem charges of bigotry, etc. It is also a big opportunity for “the opponents” to speak their minds and hopefully some, if not most, will think more critically about it. It seems with all the majority opinion you cite here, it seems braver “young souls” will have to be on the other side, try not to “keep them in the dark” and keep the discussion going, because as in what happened to the RH Law, others have tried, but thankfully failed, to silence opposition to the law. We see this coming in the next few years, too often activists do ad misericordiams then end up in ad baculums which will eventually get some mouths, “eyes and ears closed forever” by force of law.

I am, of course, alarmed at the numbers with regards to these majority opinion in Ireland, The US and elsewhere. But majority opinion is nothing, really, I can only hope it is a more-informed majority opinion, but by what I see online, I may have to entertain my doubts. Fallacies remain fallacies even when they become fashionable.

SC asked: Allow same-sex marriage in PH
The 31-page petition highlights the need for a more LGBT-inclusive society and is the first known and reported legal action of its kind before the Philippine High Court

To which I responded to the top comments here:

Rand Althor: Just give it some time and continue the support. The generation causing inequality is slowly fading away and millenials are taking over 🙂 I pray they would know better. Be wise and cultivate the future generations to know better.
Pepe: Sure, give it time. My hope is that these “millenials” who are “taking over” be educated in thinking about the issue critically – that marriage is a package. It’s about the adults but it is also always about the state understanding that these opposite sex adults intentionally or unintentionally give rise to children and we need them to stay married, to rear those kids into good citizens. The argument for the traditional/natural definition is simple: “If there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships.” The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so. Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point. To those who say that a redefinition of marriage does not affect anyone at all (except those who are seeking to ‘join’ the institution), be not mislead. Chief Justice Roberts, during the April oral arguments for Obergefell said “you are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite sex relationship, and you want to introduce to it a same-sex relationship.” So does civil marriage, for the purposes of the state, infringe on any fundamental human right? That is the legal question Obergefell tried but miserably failed to answer and it has even turned the US constitution on its head doing so. Apparently, it does not. Treating something essentially unique as marriage in a unique way is not discrimination. Therefore, we are not, in effect, denying the same rights to LGBTs when we treat a unique institution such as marriage in a unique way for the purposes of the family and state. Marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anyway. They have a disparate impact on gays, certainly, but that is not the court’s test. Marriage laws do not discriminate based on orientation is that they simply do not require checking someone’s orientation at all in determining whether that person will receive the benefits of civil marriage. Thus, under man–woman marriage laws, a gay man may marry a lesbian woman, while two heterosexual men cannot receive a marriage certificate from the state. “Marriage equality” as I maintain elsewhere is another misleading, if not outright deceptive slogan, people seem to “blindly follow” this too, as it is “unacceptable reasoning” to me. Do we really think that one-man-and-one-woman relationships are equal with one-man-one-man, two-men-one-woman, three-sisters, ten-brothers, one-man-and-a-harem? With respect to the state purpose of civil marriage where new citizens are natural fruits, and in view of a strong and orderly society, there is no comparison here. The most robust studies consistently show that children do best when a mom and dad are present. Why should we as a society wish otherwise. Before US president Obama, so-called “evolved” on this issue, back in 2008 he said “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
Didier Santos Marsac: I believe that although lots of Filipino are tolerant, as written earlier, the Philippines is a country where religion is still very important and lots of politicians claim that they are not in favor of marriage equality, the fight is going to be tough. However, I fully support the Philippines and I encourage the Filipino LGBT organizations to keep fighting. Don’t give up, please keep going! The fight is going to be long and tough but keep in mind all the Lgbt Filipinos and Filipinas that still believe in you. What you guys are doing is never useless! Now, I suggest you to focus on how gay, lesbian and trans people are perceived in the Filipino society and wonder if the existence of gay people badly affect the society. Answer, no. It doesn’t change the society. Gay and lesbian Filipinos and Filipinas go to work, to school, to college, pay their taxes, go shopping, hang out with their friends just like any other citizens of the Philippines. In fact, they are Filipino and Filipina citizens of the Philippines and as such they must have the same rights than the rest of the populations. They deserve to create a family just like any other citizens in the country. And if that happens, the society will not be destroyed because there will have the same amount of gays and straights. Why? Because homosexuality is not a desease. It is not a sickness that may contaminate people. It is a sexual orientation. A part of our identity. Because we are still human beings, normal people. I hope this is mentionned in the petition. All my support from France! xoxoxo

Pepe: It is never about homosexuality but about what is marriage. I don’t think marriage laws deny gays marriage benefits based solely on being gay (as activists like so much to imagine) in the same way that marriage is rightly regulated against polyamorous/polygamous and incestuous relationships, in Obergefell, Chief Justice Roberts cites former Justice O’Connor in Lawrence, in writing that “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples [might I add incestuous and polyamorous/polygamous couples] is rationally related to the States’ legitimate state interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage”, which is what I state above. It simply means we treat something unique in a unique way. The sexual relationship of one man and one woman is the only one capable of producing new citizens. People who cannot procreate (infertile and old people) seem to be discriminated in this reasoning but they still model the biologically complementary partnership, and when they adopt, they provide the same ideal environment for these new citizens. There is also no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally do so; It is a consistent basic biological fact that all children have a male father and a female mother. A common sense reason why heterosexual parents are the gold standard and ideal environment to rear new citizens is because a mother and a father being biologically complementary bring to the table unique sets of perspectives, ways of thinking, physical capabilities etc., simply by the biological/anthropological nature of their different gender; for example, I usually refer to breastfeeding as having more than just physical benefits to the baby. Moreover, I argued for biological parenthood that further reinforces this idea, children in homes where both biological parents are present tend to do better than adoptive homes for many reasons such as natural connection, genealogical connection, psychological and emotional effects of genetic connections. You see all this point to the truth that mothers and fathers are irreplaceable in a child’s life. That’s why I ask everyone to consider this: “Do we really think that one-man-and-one-woman relationships are equal with one-man-one-man, two-men-one-woman, three-sisters, ten-brothers, one-man-and-a-harem?” clearly, the answer is “no”. I think we always have to be clear what we mean when we say “marriage” that it is, as the state recognizes for its purposes, a life-long union of one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. The state recognizes that more than just a unique biological union that produces new citizens, it is best environment in which these new citizens are nurtured, and the people, through the state, do not and should not want anything less.
Philo Lehmar: Some serious questions (I don’t ask these rhetorically):

– What reasons are there for legalizing same-sex marriages *that also don’t give us reason to legalize polygamy and/or heterosexual same-sex marriage*?

– If marriage is merely about love, why should the government have any interest in it in the first place? But if marriage has some connection to children and family life, then it isn’t surprising that the government would have an interest in marriage, since children and the quality of family life have an effect on society.

Would love to read your answers on this. Thanks.

Zafiro Bourdeaux: It’s a little bit more complicated than that.
Should an infertile female be allowed to marry a fertile male?
Should a straight elderly couple be allowed to marry?
Should a straight couple who don’t want to have kids be allowed to marry?

Two adults (two equals) who love each other and want to be committed should be allowed to marry. Simple as that.

Why are you the judge of a child’s quality of family life? I can definitely tell you that quality is not solely dependent on one male and one female parent. It depends on two parents (or even just one if it’s a single parent family) who know how to love and take care of their children.

Serious: Please take time to read this article: http://whygethitched.com/2015/05/20/understanding-marriage-procreative-partnership-v-romantic-coupling-a-response-to-national-review/

Philo Lehmar: Yes to your first two questions, as to your third question, it depends (they might change their minds). The traditional view doesn’t say that procreation is required for marriage, but that marriage is the kind of relationship that is *naturally oriented* toward procreation, whether or not procreation actually occurs. But I don’t wanna explain the traditional view here, I want to learn about your side 🙂

You say that “Two adults (two equals) who love each other and want to be committed should be allowed to marry. Simple as that.” Why think that?

You ask “Why are you the judge of a child’s quality of family life?” I’m not 🙂 But I’m not sure your comment answers my second question – If marriage is merely about love, why should the government have any interest in it in the first place? In other words, how can we explain the involvement of government in marriage throughout history if marriage were simply about love?

Again, thank you for your comment, I sincerely want to learn about your side 🙂

Richard Silvestre: i think the proper question is not: ‘should two people of the same sex be INCLUDED in the state-sanction marriage’. rather: ‘WHY should two people of the same sex be EXCLUDED in the state-sanctioned marriage’

the equality clause in the constitution assures every individual fairness under the law. there SHOULD BE A REASON why a state deprive some individuals the same right as everyone else. for example, when you commit a crime, the state would deprive you of liberty and you will end up in jail. (interesting note, you will still be allowed to marry LOL.)

those who oppose gay marriage suggest that the state has an interest in keeping marriage between a man and woman for two reasons you have mentioned: 1. procreation; 2. children’s welfare. the first reason can be easily demolished by the fact that a couple don’t have to undergo a fertility test before they can get a marriage contract. the second reason is rather gray area and studies are still being done as to how children of same sex couple fare compared with those of straight couple. recent studies, however, show that there are no difference whatsoever (these studies are cited during the same sex legalization oral arguments in the us supreme court last april.)

also to answer your questions:
You say that “Two adults (two equals) who love each other and want to be committed should be allowed to marry. Simple as that.” Why think that?

-that’s how it works for straight people. why shouldn’t it apply to gay couples?

If marriage is merely about love, why should the government have any interest in it in the first place? In other words, how can we explain the involvement of government in marriage throughout history if marriage were simply about love?

-marriage, as a purely state-run affair, is not only about commitment and about love, it’s about sharing wealth, visitation rights, end of life decisions, etc. that’s why the government has vested interest in couples who want a marriage contract.
Philo Lehmar: You say, “the first reason can be easily demolished by the fact that a couple don’t have to undergo a fertility test before they can get a marriage contract.”

Interesting point. Will think about it 🙂

You also say, “the second reason is rather gray area and studies are still being done as to how children of same sex couple fare compared with those of straight couple. recent studies, however, show that there are no difference whatsoever”

On one hand, a recently published article by Loren Marks surveyed 59 studies supporting the no-difference thesis, and found that they were all deeply flawed by sampling and design problems, problematic statistics, and unjustified generalizations to the larger population. On the other hand, several recent studies (I linked about it in another comment here) falsify the no-difference thesis.

You later write, “-that’s how it works for straight people. why shouldn’t it apply to gay couples?”

My question is: why shouldn’t it also apply to polygamous relationships, or to heterosexual same-sex relationships? (Yes, some straight men have tried to marry each other, believe it or not.)

Lastly, you write, “marriage, as a purely state-run affair,”

What do you mean? And why think that marriage is a *purely* state-run affair?

Thank you for your long comment, I appreciate it 🙂

Serious: You have very good questions there. I agree with you on the”love” part. Our law does not even require that the contractingparties “be in love”. So why even use that argument? Let us not even try to include it in our law. You don’t wantthe state questioning your integrity. At least our lawmakes distinction (or as some prefer to say: discriminate) on the sexuality ofthe contracting parties (man and woman) but it does not discriminate based onlevel, quality or even lack of love between the parties. That said, the LGBT’s real issue is on the former:distinction on sexuality. Seriously, the “we love each other”argument is a very cheap shot when it comes legal matters.

Zafiro Bourdeaux, you just said “Two adults (twoequals) who love each other and want to be committed should be allowed tomarry. Simple as that.” I’d say that is a very sweeping and simplisticargument. That is not going to help the LGBT community. If adopted, that wouldbe a very vague law. And we know what happens to vague laws–they get abusedmore than the others.

Here is a good argument. If a gay couple (not married justcommitted) decides to adopt a child, without similar law on conjugalpartnership gains afforded to legal marriages, the child will not be able thegain full benefit of the wealth (support) of the couple. Or let’s remove anychild in the picture, just the the two of them. If your partner dies, there isno legal basis for yout claim to his/her properties. If you want these, thenI’d say a legal union might be more appropriate and easier to gain than marriage(in our existing law).

If the LGBT will insist on the “love argument” andsocial acceptance, I think appealing to the state law on marriage does notmatched with these.

These arguments might work with the church and the Filipinofamilies. These two makes the most distinction or discrimination with regard todifferent types of unions and relationships. You may argue that with a passage of a law social acceptance will simply follow but I’d say you don’t know Filipinos at all–or people in general for that matter.
Pepe: These are great questions that will make the issue clearer. What is marriage after all, right? The slogan “Marriage Equality” seems vacuous and misleading. Equality of individuals, regardless of sexual orientation is a no-brainer, everyone is equal, individually. However, when it’s about marriage, are we even sure that gay couples, polyamorous/adulterous setups, incestuous couples, are “equal” to the traditional one-man-one-woman relationships for the purposes of the state which is interested only in the natural fruits this traditional setup produces – new citizens? So, in this sense, asking for same-sex marriage is tantamount to asking for special priveleges, not equal rights. We cannot really say that “no compelling state interest exists to limit civil marriages to opposite-sex couples” when it’s nothing more than pushing for recognition of a particular adult relationship of our choice.
Manuel Moreira: Marriae as it is today is completely different from what it was years ago when women were seen as property for example.
Definitions change, right now the ones with privileges are straight people since they can marry while LGBT Filipinos can’t!
As an European with the luck of living in a civilised society I wish the LGBT* Filipino community much luck

Pepe: Hi Manuel! Definitions change? But definitions comprise of essential and non-essential properties and the definition of marriage has the essential property of being a union of a man and a woman. It used to have the non-essential property of coverture before, or yes, perhaps in other cultures women are seen as goods, but I argue that those are non-essential properties added to marriage so can be easily shed. So when we think about the essential properties of heterosexual, exclusive (just two) and life-long union (already undermined by divorce), heterosexual couples are certainly “the ones with privileges”, but for good reason, it simply the objective of the state to protect the family and to make sure every child (read: future citizen) is taken cared of by one man (father) and one woman (mother) which is the best possible environment for children. Now another dimension to it is that philosophically the danger is if definitions do change, marriage may mean eventually to be between a corporation and a woman, a man and his dogs, or a child and her parent, a building and a mouse and a woman and herself. But let’s not go there even in speaking of just within legal boundaries of personhood and consent, having privileges does not mean you are infringed of rights to your preferred relationships be it two men, two women, three women, twenty cousins, adulterous, incestuous relationships, these are all allowed in society but why should the state grant them the same privileges? So people are equal but relationships clearly aren’t as the state sees it. So as I said in the above, “equality of individuals, regardless of sexual orientation is a no-brainer, everyone is equal, individually. However, when it’s about marriage, are we even sure that gay couples, polyamorous/adulterous setups, incestuous couples, are “equal” to the traditional one-man-one-woman relationships for the purposes of the state?”, not really. So, I maintain that “asking for same-sex marriage is tantamount to asking for special priveleges, not equal rights.”

Finally, I my Family Code references that I bounced off Sam was from this article:

Respond to same-sex marriage petition, SC asks gov’t
The Supreme Court en banc asks the Civil Registrar to respond to a petition filed by a young Filipino lawyer, who identified himself as openly gay

 

People’s Champ II: That’s a wRap(pler.com)

​I guess somehow it makes me glad that Christians in the comments section are now standing up for their faith and countering dogmatic (bigoted?) LGBT bashers. Of course, you’d still get those who simply drop bible quotes as if they actually mean anything to most people. I’m also getting tired of those. You should at least explain how that bible quote is relevant. The reaction of course is even worse, the irreligious ones quote the bible as well with poor understanding and misinformation they sort of slap it in the face of Christians as if a few context-free verses will shatter centuries of biblical doctrine.

Anyway, see the comments for yourself, here are the latest articles of pro-LGBT agenda newsblog, rappler.com on Manny Pacquiao’s comments:

The ‘sub-humanity’ of Manny Pacquiao

‘Alam mo kung ano ang mas masahol sa hayop? Ang magnakaw sa taumbayan katulad ng hindi mo pagtupad sa tungkulin mo bilang hinalal na opisyal’

Pacquiao cites scripture to clarify same-sex couple remark

‘I’m not condemning anyone, but I’m just telling the truth,’ Pacquiao says in an Instagram post

Controversial Pacquiao video ‘edited in good faith’ – TV5

TV5 says its video of Manny Pacquiao’s comments on gay marriage was ‘minimally edited in good faith’

In families with same-sex parents, the kids are all right
Research shows no evidence that children raised by a single parent or same-sex couples were less competent or well-rounded than other children

Donaire hopes Pacquiao’s Bible verse post doesn’t incite violence against gays
Donaire writes on his Facebook: ‘I humbly pray that nobody takes the bible verse Pacquiao posted about ‘put to death gays’ LITERALLY.’

Dear Manny: X users react
X users share their take on Manny Pacquiao’s comments, forgiving him, and the judgment of the online community

Nike terminates deal with Manny Pacquiao over gay comments
Nike says they ‘no longer have a relationship with Manny Pacquiao’ as backlash over his controversial statements continues

 NBA legend Magic Johnson applauds Nike for dropping Pacquiao
Johnson also insisted that he won’t be watching any more of Pacquiao’s fights

 Pacquiao posts, then removes, scripture on gay couples ‘put to death’
The boxing icon and congressman, who is facing an international backlash over his statement on gay couples, may have added more fuel to the fire with his latest move

Now, I would like to respond to this opinion by Fritzie, when I have the time, it’s on rappler’s “X” blog not rappler.com itself:

When politicos obsess over god
Thou shall not rock the boat. But we need more Filipinos who will build new boats for those who no longer fit or feel safe in the old rickety one.

People’s Champ I: Get Real, Philippines?

This is a series of comments at GetRealPhilippines.com. Some articles here, I have not responded, but for the most part, I have comments and responses. GRP is a diverse group when it comes to opinions and so they do not all necessarily agree with one another, but a common thread is the Filipino culture as failure. I may have to divide this into per article posts, I don’t know, maybe not. But, I think I will keep it here for a while. Anyway, here are the articles:

The futility in outrage over Manny Pacquiao’s homophobia by rsurtida

Ccc: Famous or not famous people have the same opinion as pacquiao so it is really pointless to be outraged over his opinion, lgbt community, hit this homophobes in an educated manner, i once saw a transgender giving alm to an old man in an overpass, imagine if the beggar is a homophobe, isnt it the best payback in your face possible.

Manuelito Paner: Sharing to all this write ” God’s Truth About Gender”

God’s Truth About Gender

CBN.com The age-old debate about the root causes of homosexuality is controversial to say the least. It raises the question, does God really create some people as homosexuals?

In his new book God’s Truth about Gender, author and internist Dr. David E. James addresses this and many more difficult questions about the nature of gender—what it really means, how it shapes our identity, and how it expresses the character of God. “Contrary to what is frequently and erroneously stated in the media, there is no scientific or psychological proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavior pattern that manifests itself in certain individuals for a variety of reasons, including psychological, social, environmental, behavioral, and genetic predispositions working together to produce the homosexual person,” he states.

This genetic predisposition is often cited by those who claim homosexuality falls within the spectrum of normal sexual behavior. After all, if it’s in the genes, isn’t it a part of who you are? Not so, says the doctor. “Contrary to gay propaganda, sexuality is not an identity. It is a behavioral term. Feelings do not give us our identities. There is an error in thinking that that how one feels determines what is justifiable behavior. “

Drawing on both documented scientific research and spiritual truths, Dr. James helps readers develop an understanding of the causes behind homosexual behavior and the inner working of the homosexual or transgendered mind. More importantly, he shares on a very personal level concerning the road to healing from the wounds that cause sexual dysfunction.

In the shifting sands of culture, a critical discussion of healthy gender roles and gender identities has often been declared off-limits. In God’s Truth about Gender,Dr. James presents readers the opportunity to become accurately informed on the issues that are reshaping our cultural landscape. He recently discussed the book.
What does the Bible say about gender?

God states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…male and female, he created them” (Genesis 1:26,27 KJV). When God created people, gender was a basis for which we were to bear his likeness. Apart from the obvious differences in the physical nature of gender (man and woman), he also gave the concepts of spiritual gender—the way we feel and behave in response to stimuli—to correspond to the man and the woman he created. When we speak of the terms “masculinity” and “femininity,” we are referring to these feelings and behaviors. Men are expected to be masculine and women are expected to be feminine, though it is also possible for men and women to possess qualities characteristic of the opposite gender. However, their primary spiritual makeup will be in line with their physical gender. Because both men and women are relational beings created in his image, gender is a means through which God reflects his spiritual balance with more genders here on earth.
In many circles, those who acknowledge the differences between men and women are accused of favoring one gender over the other. Is the notion of gender equality dependent on similarity?

Different spiritual qualities come with each gender. Whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone knows there is an inherent difference between men and women. Besides the obvious physical differences, we think differently, learn differently, and are generally motivated by different ideas. These differences are spiritual, and they are based on the gender identity given to us by God—regardless of the lie being proclaimed in the world today that claims equality based on similarity. Viewing men and women as similar with regard to roles and purpose obscures the lines between genders and subsequently blurs our vision of God. The truth is, masculinity and femininity are the yin and yang of behavior. They are not morally constructed; therefore, neither nature can be better or worse than the other. In most scenarios, a balance of both natures is required.

How would you respond to the prevailing cultural notion that equates hetero/homosexuality with a person’s identity? Were homosexuals “just born that way”?

In reference to human beings, we find three areas that serve as the major factors of individual, personal identification. These are gender, race, and family. The “big three” personal identity factors are all immutable. And they all carry extreme emotional consequences for individuals suffering from crises in these areas. One cannot choose his gender, race, or family. On the other hand, sexuality is a generic term that describes our ability to behave sexually—without regard to the focus of our sexual desire.

Although we do not choose our feelings, we do have willful control over our behavioral choices. Special interest groups claim that feelings and behaviors drive a person’s identity. This is a lie. Homosexuality is not an identity. It is a choice based on feelings. At any given time, a person may feel sexual emotions toward multiple objects of desire. These objects of desire may include gender personalities (male/female), self-arousal, inanimate objects, smells, visual stimuli, etc.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are personal choices each person makes with his or her sexual capabilities. Contrary to what is frequently and erroneously stated in the media, there is no scientific or psychological proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavior pattern that manifests itself in certain individuals for a variety of reasons, including psychological, social, environmental, behavioral, and genetic predispositions working together to produce the homosexual persona.
According to your book, males who choose homosexual behavior and females who choose lesbian behavior do so for different reasons. Describe those reasons.

The psychology of homosexuality is rooted in deficit. Homosexual males typically perceive an internal lack in reference to certain issues of spiritual masculinity. This lack drives them to unite with someone of the same gender in order to make up for the lack they unconsciously sense in themselves. Many homosexual men had fathers in the home who were physically present but spiritually absent, so a relational model of the spiritually male-associated identity was nonexistent. Homosexual males desire other men not for what they can give sacrificially in love. The desire is based upon what they get—that is, their lost manhood found in the physical image of another man.

Lesbians are different from gay men. Their reparative drive is born out of a woman’s fear of harm from the male, for fear is common to the feminine mind. Many lesbians were abused sexually as children or experienced some form of masculine harm. A lesbian might even have witnessed her mother being physically abused by her father. The abuse may be verbal or emotional as well. Lesbians tend to be extremely anti-male in their stance and demeanor. This sentiment is born out of fear and anger. Lesbianism is more favorably characterized as avoidance of masculinity rather than a desire for femininity. In the end, masculinity is the driving spiritual power for both male homosexuality and lesbian sexuality. The difference is that male homosexuals seek it, while lesbians avoid it.

It is also good for the LGBT community to conduct some research about the effect of the technological advancement which the human have created and the negative consequences which resulted why there are so many LGBTs’, e.g. PCB’s used as transformer coolant which was found very effective for transformer cooling but later decided by the United nations to be stopped from its production worldwide as it affects the development of fetus during pregnancy which resulted to gays and lesbians after birth.

For those who are against the statement of Manny Pacquiao which he compared animal to human, he already asked an apology “sorry” for the mistake he has made – this is the same as he is asking forgiveness for him to be forgiven by our God. It’s good to recognize and accept his apologies and stop issuing statements against him as he is a person like all of us who also committed sins and continuously asked forgiveness to our Lord Father God when we feel and realizes that we committed sins for we’re not created perfect in this world. God bless us all, Manny Paner

benign0: You’re building an argument on a shaky assumption — the notion that a god “creates” stuff to begin with. Did a god create everything? For that matter, was all of what we see, perceive, and experience “created” by some kind of omniscient power? Unless we resolve this, there can be no argument built upon it and certainly no debate around the notion that a god “created” homosexuals.

Japonicus: @benign0 Good luck engaging any religious zealot as to why using their bible as a citation source is an inherently flawed and fallacious practice. The moment that you reveal that you don’t believe in their “god”, they shut their ears and start singing “Kumbaya” out loud. There’s no reasoning with those who are deliberately ignorant.

Amir Al Bahr: That is, if they don’t start hurling invectives, all sorts of damnations and accusations of heathenness, heresy, and how much of an uncivilized, lower life form the non-believer is, at him first. There’s no reasoning with those who think dogmatically.

Pepe Rep: How is it a “shaky assumption”, man? I find it very reasonable to believe the idea that (a) God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past. (b) God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. (c) God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world. (d) God is the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (e) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness. (f) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. (g) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. (h) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists. (i) God can be personally known and experienced.

However, I do agree with you that it is an assumption that undergirds the more specific argument which goes:

(1) We are all obligated to do God’s will.
(2) God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
(3) The Bible forbids homosexual behavior
(4) Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God’s will, or is wrong.

In this specific case, we can take the proposition (c) (although all these make a cumulative case for God). Anyway, this is to bridge what seems to be a gap in reasoning. I do hope that Christians (and their leaders) engage the issue more effectively and not simply quote the bible. There are several levels in this complex issue, such as 1. Same sex relationships (personal/private), 2. Homosexuality, 3. Homosexual acts/behavior, 4. Political/Social level discussion: Same Sex Marriage 5. Christian/religious perspectives, 6. Scientific data and its implications, and maybe others that I failed to mention.

These are different issues and varying approaches address these differently, say, in the socio-political aspect which involves non-Christians, a biblical exposition may not be as effective as other arguments against state-sanctioned same sex marriage. Yeah, so I think clarifications of these subtleties are paramount to a more productive discussion. 🙂

benign0: “(f) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.”
Well there you go then. Looks like you’ve got it all figured out.

Pepe Rep: Yeah, but you may be rather dismissive without thinking about (f) to make it appear like it is a conversation stopper. This is actually the classic Leibniz argument to contingency on why something exists rather than nothing. It goes like this:

(1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
(3) The universe exists.
(4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
(5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

What can we deduce from this if successful? A necessary being, “God”, who is responsible for contingent matter, time and space (i.e., the universe and us). This isn’t a conversation stopper but a starter where we can further examine the premises and think about the properties of the conclusion. 🙂

Why Filipinos are not ready to fully embrace ‘gay rights’ by benign0

Pepe Rep: Hi benign0! Your piece has a false dilemma, but only if the horns are not misrepresented. I don’t think Christian, or even Catholic doctrine is at odds with modernity and in fact it is within a Christian framework that the ideals of secularism is able to thrive. Now, are the horns misrepresented? Yes, but not by you entirely. I am with you that Filipinos across social strata have misrepresented Christianity/Catholicism and may misrepresent secularism as well. So I don’t think it is the problem if “religion is stubbornly baked into Filipinos’ sense of identity” if the right approach to religion and faith is in place in our collective consciousness.

Now let us proceed with examining “gay rights” and “Why Filipinos are not ready to fully embrace ‘gay rights’” I need to look into your assumptions here. One is that there is such a thing as ‘gay rights’. Well, sure, people like to say that a lot. But I would like to understand what specifically are you talking about here. What constitutes ‘gay rights’ apart from the rights of other individuals? I appreciate your criticism of Zafra’s dogged assertion that LGBT rights are not subject to debate. I mean, I cringe whenever someone says anything at all is not subject to debate and critical examination, including religious beliefs and homosexuality. Yes sure, Christian teaching categorically lists homosexual sexual relationships as sinful, but it does not mean that all homosexuals in the country should not be allowed to engage in such activities by banning or criminalizing it, and in fact it isn’t.

Now, for one, your objective of paving “the way for gender and sexual orientation equality” is suspect. Again, you’ll have to explain what does this look like in public policy and in private practice. For one, in private practice, it can be done and it is being done (i.e., benefits for live-in partners regardless of gender is recognized in ADP, Thomson Reuters, IBM) but there is no need to force other private companies to follow suit in accordance to their company values. I guess for employees of government agencies, that is also OK but as a matter of public policy, in anti-discrimination laws and especially in civil marriage recognition it is debatable as it may have intrinsic contradictions and unintended consequences. Your method, “the true sustainable foundation that needs to be laid…is to put the secular state over and above the Philippines’ Catholic cultural roots when evaluating the question of gay and gender rights” is laudable, but it fails to recognize that (1) moral dimensions, such as the Catholic sense of identity of our majority, inform laws and that abandoning it constitutes (a) an affront to the collective consciousness of the majority and (b) having to enforce another equal moral dimension in secularism, even the Singapore government, committed to the secularism of the state, reserves the constitutional right to define morality for everyone; (2) granted the possibility of even abandoning such moral dimension, non-religious, philosophical, practical, even secular objections continue to hound the idea of gay and gender rights such as last year, we had discussion in congress committees on the draft of “Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity” to which one commentator asserted that “the eccentric thing about the draft law is that it purports to say that there is no difference between the rest of the Philippine population and the LGBT, and then proceeds to provide rights and protections to the LGBT that the rest of the community does not enjoy (which is the total absence of requiring overt qualifications and escape from legal discrimination). Not only is this against the essence of democratic rule, it also illogically violates the doctrine of equal treatment, as well as the idea of human rights being universal. Rather than equality of rights, we have a balkanization of rights for a small group of people rather than for all people.”

Now culturally, not only Filipinos “are sexually active outside of marriage”, but I get your point that there exists a disconnect in values and practice. But that disconnect does nothing to the truth and purposes of the Christian doctrine and Family laws against adultery and concubinage. I think there is nothing wrong with Filipinos being “generally open to homosexuals and [even approving of] their lifestyles”, some of us are gracious enough to understand that people don’t share our religious views and so given latitude, I do think that if we love them enough, we would gently persuade them into our views especially on matters of morality. Using artificial conctraception maybe forbidden by the Catholic church but not by Christianity in general. So not “all of these are, absolute violations of Church teachings”, really. The “prayerfulness and deference to divine will and intervention” is also not a problem and if “it is intricately interwoven into their politics and state affairs — routine full-on (even institutionalised)…” can be a matter for democracy to decide. I do not necessarily agree that it is “contravening of the doctrine of separation of church and state”, but can rather be a manifestation of humble reverence to the necessarily Theistic foundations of objective morality, human rights and principles of justice.

I already understand and agree that we are almost a “medieval-style oligarchy” and that can be easily solved albeit slowly, by opening the Philippine economy. But it would be good to discuss how exactly are we “a de facto theocracy” and hopefully it isn’t only because of the supposedly “progressive” and “modern” policies you may personally favor (i.e., divorce, gender “equality”, same sex mariage, legal abortion, RH law, etc.) that get blocked or diluted because of imagined sectarian reasoning without considering that there are well-argued secular objections to these that are being raised in the interest of all and not infringing on individual (not special interest groups) rights. Having said that, I am also with you that we have a lot to do more culturally, but I don’t think it has anything to do for the most part of being Catholic or Christian. If anything, we need to critically rethink our religiosity and our approach to faith, but there is no need to jettison it.

Yeah you’re right in one sense that majority of Filipinos have, in the words of Fitzgerald, “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function” (and I don’t mean that as a compliment, as it’s similar to secular humanism, having your morality cake and eating it too) due to their trendy hippie “progressive” Catholicism and closed conservative Catholicism at the same time. However, back to my opening notes, if represented correctly, “aspiring to be a modern people” does not contradict Catholicism/Christianity. The statement “Catholicism is built upon a medieval non-negotiable belief system that is written in black and white that constrains the efforts of no less than the pope himself to “modernise” its institution” contains a somewhat contradiction that can be resolved by the question “Is Pope Francis being a real Catholic and adhering to Catholicism in his efforts to “modernize” the church?” if he is then, maybe the idea that “Catholicism is built upon a medieval non-negotiable belief system that is written in black and white that constrains” is false. I’d like to hear Catholic views on this.

Finally, what does it mean to “apply a lot of modern thinking”? And what do you mean when you say “making the right choice”? Logical (normative) thinking has existed for centuries, nothing “modern” in that, but I agree, even that isn’t easy. And the false dilemma becomes clearer when the choice becomes, now in your words, “good Catholics” and “good members of a modern secular society” because another alternative is possible to be good Catholics/Christians and good members of a modern society.

benign0: @PepeRep: Yes, you’re right. There is a lot of ambiguity around the term “gay rights”. Most of it has to do with being free from bias and prejudice which, for that matter, everyone regardless of ethnic background, lifestyle choice (within the legal framework of course), physical and mental ability, gender, and, yes, sexual orientation should enjoy, to begin with. As such, much of the rhetoric around gay rights are actually motherhood statements around enjoying “freedom from [insert form of abuse or prejudice here]”.

The highest and, possibly, only form of concrete recognition that the state could grant to the “gay rights” movement is to legalise same-sex marriage (and perhaps enact specific legislation to directly address hate crimes against homosexuals). As I mentioned, for a mature debate around that to be sustained, secular ideals and principles need to enjoy centre stage in the discourse and religious concerns relegated to the background. As you rightly pointed out, a strictly secular regard for this issue will alienate the majority who suffer deeply-ingrained religious sensibilities.

So, the way to resolve aspiring to be a “modern society” perhaps comes back to Filipinos putting their heads together to come up with a definition of modernity that suits their cultural frame. At present, the notion of modernity and progressiveness is derived from a Western ideal, specifically Western European and US coastal liberalism — one that, in my opinion, has swung too far out to embrace extremist political correctness that encourages the sorts of self-entitled foot-stomping we see from certain over-zealous gay “activists” today.

As in the case of Singapore which you also highlighted, they came up with their own approach to framing their country’s march to modernisation. Filipinos can do the same. They just need to stop aping Western ideals blindly, use a bit of imagination, and come up with original ideas for a change.

Pepe Rep: Thanks for your response, man! I will agree to a certain extent that “secular ideals and principles need to enjoy centre stage in the [legal/constitutional] discourse and religious concerns relegated to the background”, I suppose, since that’s already how I respond in most of my comments against same-sex marriage, that arguments without direct religious bible quoting are more effective in policy discussions. But that’s just my legal pragmatism. Ultimately, when it comes to culture and society, beyond the legal, religious principles continue to guide us whether we like it or not. It is how Northern European countries are able to have their “secularism”, by having a solid Lutheran foundation, quite unlike the “secularism” of Eastern Europe and Russia and China under the communists, where the state gets to sacrifice its people to the atheistic altar it has built. I mean, religion has a broad reach, it is philosophy or worldview, after all. It informs many aspects of our lives and lives together in a community, society and nation. If that’s how we define religion, then “secularism” is exactly the same, it is also a form of philosophy with its own set of guiding principles, in a philosophical discussion then, these will go head-to-head and when you get to the foundational levels, say, the ideas of morality, human rights and justice, it only become clearer.

I find hate crimes illogical (not just LGBT, but the whole idea, that includes Jews, Muslims, etc.) Again, this is the kind of policy that enshrines group rights over individual rights. So it’s not really “being free from bias and prejudice…” but quite the contrary. In any case, the private sector can do so more effectively and voluntarily deal with bias and prejudice than policy can. NGOs can do so better inform everyone freely of its principles. It does not have to be the state, and the state shouldn’t pander to the idea of “hate crimes” (or especially “hate speech”) since it should treat all crimes as equally punishable with the same penalties regardless of the perpetrator’s/victim’s belonging to a “privileged”/”oppressed” group. So the question becomes should we ever be ready to fully embrace ‘gay rights’? or better, do Filipinos actually respect individual rights?

I wouldn’t say any country at all is aping any idea, for one, there is nothing original anymore in the 21st century. Nothing new under the sun as the good book says. The Singapore government for example, has said that they look at what works around the world and see if it applies, that’s how their policies “evolve”. To date, there is still no same-sex marriage there and even the constitution criminalizes sodomy to the horror to our LGBT friends (I don’t even agree with that one legally, although I am against it morally). In this sense, it will always be automatically applied/reapplied in context but it isn’t entirely original. So perhaps you can blame something in the Filipino culture that somehow mangled Spanish Christianity (to Folk Catholicism?) and twisted American Liberty, etc., and not the other way around. So I think we already have our own brand, it may be not of modernity but maybe something else. But quite frankly, I want to find out that “something” in our culture, and my only clue is our education and protectionist economy, not enough capital (information and cash) coming in and going around out very big archipelago. Interesting to note that India, for example, it is said, has skipped modernity; it went straight from traditional to post-modern! I find that amusing and it may well apply to Filipinos too. I hope (I was inclined to say “pretty sure”) that given better economics and education, less taxes, we may have the opportunity to shed whatever it is in our culture that encrusts us, our artists have shown good signs, we seem to be very creative despite the situation we are in, but sadly creative also in errant ways. Anyway, I don’t think there is ever a need to worry about own brand or “definition of modernity that suits our cultural frame”.

benign0: I will grant that religion was a powerful tool for organising and moving large numbers of people towards a common goal (e.g. war, allegiance to kingdoms and empires, the construction of large civil works, etc.). It provided the social glue to a collective with which individuals satisfied their need to belong and be a part of something bigger than themselves (and, as a result, justify to themselves their subjection to the will and command of an earthly “representative” of a deity such as a monarch). Religion was, in this respect, a foundation for the evolution of large-scale civilisation.

I too agree that the development of the Philippine nation should be underpinned by a parallel evolution of our culture. At the moment, for lack of a clear vision of where this evolution should ideally head towards, the Western (specifically American) model is held up as the beacon for this aspiration. But, to be sure, the process will proceed unaided nonetheless in its own organic way.

That’s not to say, however, that the process can be helped along by a conscious collective effort. And that is where competent leadership comes in (and, unfortunately, where the Philippines fails as far as the effort of uplifting its politics). A competent leader will have the skills to recognise and evaluate the potential and hindrances provided by his/her people’s culture and posses the vision to chart a course that rides the potential and works around or overcomes the hindrances.

Pepe Rep: Alright, cool. I will reserve further philosophical inquiry for another time especially since it isn’t part of the current discussion on your article. At least I know where you’re coming from, of course I don’t agree with your evolutionary explanation of “religion” and if especially the foundational ideas we hold to (our assumptions) contradict each other, both cannot be true. Anyway, I share the hope for better leaders, my opinion is that it starts with better education and better economic prospects for a bigger percentage of the population (so we get more people to choose from, not just the traditional “elites”). Again, thank you benign0, for this piece.

Robert Haighton: @Pepe, its me again. I am just thinking out loud now (and yes its not within the scope of the actual topic). Who decides about the educational system in PH is poor, average or good? Is that the PH president, the CEO’s of DepEd and/or CHED or the public? And what makes it poor (if it is so)? Who will gain/profit by not changing the educational system, curriculum and the quality of it? And why? If it is indeed poor (compared to what/who, which other countries?) why does nobody protest actively and demand change?

[I intend to respond to Rob sooner… or later. He has many things to say. When I see him comment and respond to other last time, I though he was more astute, but in our previous lengthy discussion below he just writes with a lot of anecdotal evidence, he does have some better substance in his other comments, not directly to me, but to others, I want to respond, but no time for now, they are as follows:

Sick_Amore: When you say “gay rights”, what are those actually aside from freedom from discrimination and hate crime and a right to wed? Because like for example a person is murdered or abused, whether he’s gay or straight, same law will be applied. Also, whenever I hear LGBT community, it felt like heteros are outsiders to their sphere. Who separates themselves to equality? Isn’t there just a single community for both? Somehow the divide was made prominent when they made distinction to the community where it’s normal for all genders and ages to belong.

benign0: The “gay rights” movement does not seems to be too different from the “cause” of the Bangsamoro people who claim that they need the BBL to be passed for them to realise their “full potential” as a people. But the question that they cannot seem to answer in a compelling manner is, What is it specifically about the current national system they are currently subject to that prevents them from achieving the same without having to change anything?

Same thing with the gay community. Is there anything about the present system that prevents them from being all that they could be within the legal framework?

OnesimusUnbound: Same thing with the gay community. Is there anything about the present system that prevents them from being all that they could be within the legal framework?

I supposed it’s the nation’s restriction of its institutional marriage between a male and female, in a biological sense. 🙂

staser: Filipinos should just strive to create a good modern Catholic society in the vein of Poland, Austria, Hungary, or Slovenia. Only problem is that Failipinos are too primitive and inferior to make such a thing happen.

Combatron: My thoughts on the matter of gay rights and being a Christian: First, being a Christian for me, is being a follower of Jesus. There is a relationship. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Jesus being the Lord of my life means His will is above my will, His statutes above my life. I cannot be a follower of Jesus without surrendering my will to His, without obedience to God, to His Word, the Bible. That is why homosexual activities including gay marriage and whatever “gay rights” constitute (except when it is a basic human right) is simply not tolerable. Because it is a sin. (Disclaimer: I was a sinner too but by His grace through faith in Jesus, I am saved. Now that the Holy Spirit is within me, I choose to live daily by His grace in overcoming the sinful nature in me.)

Homosexual activities today are no different from the homosexual activities described in the Bible especially dating back to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Likewise, the God of today is no different from the God during those days and the God of tomorrow. God still and will still detest sin.

Everyone are given/will be given a choice to be saved but not everyone believes that Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life.
Free will is intrinsically woven with love as demonstrated on the Cross (Jesus chose to obey God’s will out of love for the Father) but sometimes, people exercise free will out of their convenience, out of their own truths, out of their circumstances.

Combatron: Correction: Everyone is* given…

Robert Haighton: Combatron, in my country we have the freedom of religion. That means that every individual can choose his/her own religion (including being muslim, buddhist, an agnost or atheist or you name it. Although I dont consider atheism a religion) without being/getting prosecuted for it. In that concept (freedom of religion) you have your truth (there is a god) and others have theirs (there is no god or another god). Now, in any civilized country they perfectly can live next to each other. Okay at worst, I may not be your friend (if being your next door neighbour) and I maybe even dislike you for having and sticking to your own religion. What I will never do, is throw my belief-system into your throat as being the ONLY truth.

Even when I dislike your religion/belief-system, I sincerely and genuinely think it is very beautiful that 2 people from different belief-systems can live next to each other in perfect harmony (meaning not killing or harming each other). In other words, I leave you alone (with your ideas) and you leave me alone (with my ideas). You dont even have to respect me and my ideas.

To make this workable/doable, such a government (allowing freedom of religion) has to grant the population certain other freedoms (such as individual (equal) rights). So there is a legal abortion for those who think that will benefit them or is just practical. You (as religious) person are free NOT to use that freedom for abortion. Isnt that also beautiful? You are given a right (legal abortion) but not needing it? The same for legal same sex civil wedding/marriage. You are given that right but you are free NOT to use it.

Because you have the freedom of religion you are even allowed to condemn me for using all those rights. Perfectly legal to condemn me (verbally and in writing here and anywhere else). You can even kill me for it but then pls commit the perfect crime and dont get caught. Will I kill you for thinking/behaving different? No bec in my simple mind (if I would kill you) I will and would degrade myself and you are not worth it to go to jail for that. Hence, I like the way my government let us choose and live. Although those rights were not ‘given’. We first had to fight (not physically) for them. And in some cases the Constitution needed to be changed/altered. We – my country – were till a few decades ago, also an overwhelmingly christian country. Now it becomes more and more secular, more and more atheist like.

Last but not least, my country still have a fair share of religious people. Those religious people/households/individuals can be categorized into 3 groups: a) strict religious b) moderate religious c) enlightened religious. I would label the people described by Benign0 as being part of group b).

Karlz: In a twisted sense… This once-abhorrent act became normal that it affected the belief system of the majority and then the law was adjusted to keep the peace and sanity. Waiting for someone to champion the cause of “killing” as justifiable. The plot from the movie “The Purge” is very likely to come true.

Ccc: I think you do not get the point of robert’s comment, for example, they legalized abortion yes, i condemn abortion, because it is killing of life in my belief, so even if it is legal in their country, those who are against it doesn’t have to do it. The rights were given to protect people from getting harmed from hate crimes, if i have a neighbor who i know have an abortion, i could condemn her all i want, but i couldn’t harm her or do something that will harm her physically and emotionally because she is protected by the law which legalized what she did. Now, isnt it great the law actually help us from practicing on not passing judgment, because whatever we do we will face the consequence anyway at least for those who believe in the last day of judgment. Individualism is supported in their country, and thumbs up for that.

Robert, i think filipinos still see laws as a leash that will make their life difficult instead of viewing laws as helpful, no wonder they vote law makers based on popularity not on their ability to create innovative laws.

Robert Haighton: @Ccc, as long as the Philippines has/is a collectivistic country and as long as the family (-code) excedes (in importance) the individual(ism) then the Philippines will never be ready to move forward, to progess, to improve.

For most of us a family consists of a number of individuals. And hence the family can never excede the individual. Each member of the family is unique in its make up, personality traits.

Only when each individual is raised and brought up in a strong way only then the Philippines can start to get out of poverty, get rid of their flawed and corrupt poliicians/president(s) and the too powerful RCC.

Robert Haighton: @Ccc, In addition to my earlier response (to you) I want to add something. The way you explained everything to Karlz was/is precise and accurate. We have/hold a different definition about life (in case of a pregnancy). We take into consideration the viability of the fetus.

Just FYI: abortion is legal since 1984 in my country. Abortion in the Netherlands was fully legalized on November 1, 1984, allowing abortions to be done on-demand until the twenty-first week. Cases which involve urgent medical attention can be aborted until the twenty-fourth week. There is a five-day waiting period for abortions.

History
Abortion was deemed illegal under the Penal Code of 1886. Convictions were all but precluded, however, by a requirement that the prosecution prove that the fetus had been alive until the abortion. The Morality Acts of 1911 closed this loophole and strictly barred all abortions except those performed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Legalization reached the forefront of public debate in the Netherlands during the 1970s as many other Western European countries liberalized their laws. The Staten-Generaal, however, was unable to reach a consensus between those opposing legalization, those in favor of allowing abortion and those favoring a compromise measure. A controversial abortion law was passed in 1981 with single swing votes: 76 pro and 74 against in the House of Representatives and 38 pro and 37 against in the Senate. The law left abortion a crime, unless performed at a clinic or hospital that is issued an official abortion certificate by the Dutch government, and the woman who is asking for the abortion declares she considers it to be an emergency. The law came into effect on November 1, 1984.

Currently, there are a little over 100 Dutch general hospitals certified to perform abortions, and 17 specialized abortion clinics. More than 90% of abortions take place in the specialised clinics.
In the Netherlands, abortion performed by a certified clinic or hospital is effectually allowed at any point between conception and viability, subject to a five-day waiting period. After the first trimester, the procedure becomes stricter as two doctors must consent to treatment. In practice, abortions are performed until approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy, although this limit is the topic of ongoing discussion among physicians in the Netherlands, since, due to recent medical advancements, a fetus may sometimes considered viable prior to 24 weeks. As a result of this debate, abortions are only rarely performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions after the first trimester must be performed in a hospital. The number of abortions has been relatively stable in the 21st century, around 28,000 per year. As of 2010, the abortion rate was 9.7 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Netherlands
Abortion in the Netherlands was fully legalized on November 1, 1984, allowing abortions to be done on-demand until the twenty-first week. Cases which involve urgent medical attention can be aborted until the twenty-fourth week. There is a five-day waiting period for abortions.

History
Abortion was deemed illegal under the Penal Code of 1886. Convictions were all but precluded, however, by a requirement that the prosecution prove that the fetus had been alive until the abortion. The Morality Acts of 1911 closed this loophole and strictly barred all abortions except those performed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Legalization reached the forefront of public debate in the Netherlands during the 1970s as many other Western European countries liberalized their laws. The Staten-Generaal, however, was unable to reach a consensus between those opposing legalization, those in favor of allowing abortion and those favoring a compromise measure. A controversial abortion law was passed in 1981 with single swing votes: 76 pro and 74 against in the House of Representatives and 38 pro and 37 against in the Senate. The law left abortion a crime, unless performed at a clinic or hospital that is issued an official abortion certificate by the Dutch government, and the woman who is asking for the abortion declares she considers it to be an emergency. The law came into effect on November 1, 1984.

Currently, there are a little over 100 Dutch general hospitals certified to perform abortions, and 17 specialized abortion clinics. More than 90% of abortions take place in the specialised clinics.
In the Netherlands, abortion performed by a certified clinic or hospital is effectually allowed at any point between conception and viability, subject to a five-day waiting period. After the first trimester, the procedure becomes stricter as two doctors must consent to treatment. In practice, abortions are performed until approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy, although this limit is the topic of ongoing discussion among physicians in the Netherlands, since, due to recent medical advancements, a fetus may sometimes considered viable prior to 24 weeks. As a result of this debate, abortions are only rarely performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions after the first trimester must be performed in a hospital. The number of abortions has been relatively stable in the 21st century, around 28,000 per year. As of 2010, the abortion rate was 9.7 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years.

Karlz: Thanks for the explanation. It may be far away but the circumstances leading to the legalization of the issues discussed (i.e. Abortion, same sex marriage) were major considering factors. People move lines between illegal/legal, immoral/moral to resolve conflicts in belief and principles. I tell you that the sun is dying and you tell me that it would long after my lifetime. To each his own.

ChinoF: There’s a reason why Yano’s “Banal na Aso, Santong Kabayo” remains relevant today. At least one gay person said, all they want is protection from harassment. No one to successfully oppose their relationship. For example, they don’t want someone breaking down their door and forcefully dragging them out and apart. But I’m certain there are some other people who want that. And that’s the problem.

Add: May be off-topic.
But, a friend whose daughter got married said fwg at the end of his speech at the wedding reception. Liked it so much that I asked for future use. Marriage is not all honeymoon.

Here it is: I raise my glass to you and say: May you have:
Enough happiness to keep you sweet,
Enough trials to keep you strong,
Enough sorrow to keep you human,
Enough hope to keep you happy,
Enough failure to keep you humble,
Enough friends to give you comfort,
Enough wealth to meet your needs,
Enough enthusiasm to look forward,
Enough faith to vanish depression,
Enough determination to make each day better than yesterday.

andrew: what a beautiful speech. I agree.

Onid Ordnael: Why don’t you write an article about how many people (women especially) seem to always wish for a DREAM WEDDING than a DREAM MARRIAGE. This myopia about that and the seeming lack of foresight at the trials and tribulations of married life is, I think, one of the many ball on chains that keep us perpetually mired in misery.

343Hyden007Toro9999.99: Roman Catholicism is a religion of most of Filipinos. The religion was imposed to us, by the Spanish colonizers. Conflict of teachings occurs, when religion goes far as exerting influence, over the affairs of the Republic. This is why we have the separation of the Church and the State. Jesus Christ was clear on this issue:”Render unto Caesar, things that are of Caesar’s. And, render unto God, things that are of God”… In the Christian, or Roman Catholic Church teaching. This is a very clear boundary line between the church and the state.

Homosexuality is normal just like Manny Pacquiao’s homophobia is normal by Ilda

Dale Jose Gozar: “Imagine there’s no heaven (Holy) It’s easy if you try. No hell (Evil) below us Above us only sky.”- John Lenon

How can you judge people based on your own interpretation of Bible, definition and standard of what is bad/wrong (Evil) or good/right (holy)? People have different genetic blueprint, upbringing, environment, belief, experiences in life. judge not lest ye be judged

Pepe Rep: Hi Ilda, thank you for your piece. Right out of the bat, I respect Manny’s views. He is entitled to it. I do not agree that it is “hate talk”/speech. There are a myriad other factors why I won’t vote for him to be senator and some along the lines of what you have said. Anyway let’s see your arguments: (1) you only “know it for a fact” because of personal experience, to some extent that is effective but will only take you so far. So I was expecting some footnotes, not just your experience and a punt to (2) the “vast trove of readily accessible information (and misinformation) around”. Having some notes will help clarify your proposition that (3) homosexuality is “part of nature”, I mean, what does “nature”/”normal” mean, right? Just because animals (or plants and protoplasms) are doing it doesn’t mean we humans have to and just because a behavior or set of behaviors are biologically determined does not make it moral. (4) I have no comment on the HIV part, I have yet to check the stats but if what you are saying is true, it does not help the LGBT cause especially their fight for their right to entitlements. (5) Let’s move beyond thinking in groups, significant contributions to the world should be seen regardless of race, gender, or religion or what group one belongs to, that sounds strangely familiar: Pinoy Pride ~ Gay Pride. It’s sad. That exact kind of thinking led to Turing’s persecution, let’s not perpetuate that. Now, before I get misinterpreted, I would like to state my positions and we can discuss further. I am for liberty. I would protect the free speech rights of Pacquiao just as much as his detractors. The best way to counter “hate speech” is to have more free speech to correct perceived misinformed views. Also, I do not agree with same sex “marriage” as a state-sanctioned right, and in the case of the Philippines, it goes against the constitutional principle to protect marriage and the family as the basic unit of Philippine society. It isn’t the liberty issue advocates paint it out to be. Then, I also do not think the bible condemns homosexuality (orientation) but only homosexual behavior (sodomy) there is a subtle difference there (and I’d understand if some Christians disagree, we can discuss that too). Manny should’ve been more careful with his words, and he said sorry already for his terrible language. The problem is that of course the media will always play the “worse than animals” part, which is wrong for Pacquiao to say because even in his book, we are all sinners in need of grace, all our sins are the same “falling short of God’s glory” we all have our struggles and yet we are equally made capable of transcending our “fallen nature” through “salvation”. Finally, I will reiterate my earlier comment on another article here, homosexual behavior is a mix of genetics (tendencies, hormonal activity), environment (circumstances affecting sexual development) and volition (lifestyle choices). Volition is a very important factor in brain development, something like “neurons that fire together, wire together”, that’s how amazing our brains really are; our choices and actions sort of shape our wirings too (neuroplasticity). This makes sexuality a very fluid trait quite unlike race, in terms of genetics. A socio-cultural approach like ethnicity may be more appropriately analogous. Thanks for hearing me out and for the chance to post my ideas.

Ilda: @Pepe Rep, Pacquaio is an int’l sports celebrity. A lot of people idolise him. What he said is potentially harmful to the existence of homosexuals. In the past, homosexuals have been forced to hide their sexual orientation for fear of violence inflicted on them. Pacquiao’s words can easily bring back anti-gay sentiments that can harm individuals.

Homosexuals exist and saying that my assertions are not backed up science will not make them go away. It would be good if you can prove my assertions are wrong. But how can you do that? Like I said before, if homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice, why would anyone choose it? My article is not about same sex-marriage. I don’t necessarily support it just because I wrote about homosexuality and homophobia.

What do you mean by “let’s move beyond thinking in groups”? I only highlighted the fact that homosexuals have contributed significantly to the world so people will realise that homosexuals do function as normal people too. I’m sorry but I don’t have time to address every point in your comment.

Pepe Rep: Hi again, Ilda. Thanks for responding but I think you got me wrong on at least two points here. One, I do agree that homosexuals exist, our discussion was about its origins and propagation, and I just argued that genetically the evidence is lacking for an argument to hard-wiring that you assert. But granted it has some biological component to it, as I do believe that possibly there are other physical factors such as hormones and tendencies as with any other behavior and temperament, so the second misrepresentation of my argument would be that I think that homosexuality is based on lifestyle choices exclusively. No, I did not say that. Anyway, I understand your scope does not include same-sex marriage, I just wanted others to know my view from the outset, I may have thought too far ahead in thinking that this is going to be all about same-sex marriage anyway that this article can lend support to the idea, not only that, but also to infringe free speech rights in supporting anti-discrimination laws which elevates particular groups of people as special classes above others just because they are a “minority” that’s also what I am concerned about in “thinking in groups”, maybe I anticipated too much and already assumed we are already beyond the discussion that gays like Alan Turing are just like everyone else (“normal”) maybe you just had to spell it out for others, so sorry if you feel like I misrepresented your views on the other hand. Also, the guy has already apologized for his careless words but only that, his wrong use of words but if he believes homosexual behavior (not homosexual orientation) is morally wrong, then he is entitled to that view regardless of his being a celebrity or not just as much as Nike, Lea Salonga and the others who do not agree with him. Finally, violence towards another person is against the law regardless of motivations, so I don’t agree with the idea of “hate crimes” just as much as “hate speech”, again, these stem from group rights kind of thinking which implies protected classes with special privileges.

Homosexuality and Homophobia: In the end it is about Tolerance by Hector Gamboa

Ren Car: I think you are missing the point. There is no doubt that Manny is a nice guy but what he said about gay people is abhorent. If anything else, Manny should be tolerant since he proudly proclaim that He is a man of God. To compare Gay people to animals is extremely abhorent ang blatantly ignorant. Eveb the pope would not say such thing about gay people. Manny insulted millioms of gay people. Do you realy expect them not to react with such contempt?

It also does not matter whether being gay is genetically hereditary or a choice. The issue here is personal liberty or the pursuit of happiness without hutung others.

Morever, gay people aren’t pissed off at Manny for saying he is against same-sex marriage. He has every right to express his own personal beliefs, and I happen to agree with him that the church should not wed same-sex couple for the simple fact thst it is against their religion. You somehow twisted your arguments and implied that gay people are bashing Manny because of his stance on same-sex marriage which is blatantly false.

Lastly, Manny spewed intolerance, which he has a right to exoress his ignorance but people has also the right to fight intolerance with intolerance.

What would my reaction be if I see members of the westborough baptist church rallying with placards saying that gay people are an abomination? I would insult the hell out of them and ridicule their fundamentalist beliefs. They display their intolerance, I will do the same.

They are standing up for their beliefs and I would, too. Bigots and ignorant fucks should not be tolerated. Will u tolerate someone who bash your personal beliefs? Me thinks it is time for you to get off your high horse 🙂

Hector Gamboa: I think you are missing the point. There is no doubt that Manny is a nice guy but what he said about gay people is abhorent. If anything else, Manny should be tolerant since he proudly proclaim that He is a man of God. To compare Gay people to animals is extremely abhorent ang blatantly ignorant. Eveb the pope would not say such thing about gay people. Manny insulted millioms of gay people. Do you realy expect them not to react with such contempt?

I see. So exactly how does a gay person (or any person for that matter) being compared to animals extremely abhorrent? The way people view the worth of animals is a value judgment. So where do we base our valuation on? Is there such a thing as objective value? Or is value pretty much relative or subjective? If animals (or human beings) don’t really have any objective value, would a person being compared to an animal still be abhorrent? Now sure, I don’t expect Manny’s bashers to offer him flowers after his remark. But how exactly do they have any authority to suggest that Manny is intolerant if they themselves are intolerant? Live and let live, right? Afterall, it was just a stupid remark.

It also does not matter whether being gay is genetically hereditary or a choice. The issue here is personal liberty or the pursuit of happiness without hutung others.

But being hurt upon hearing a remark is based on perception. Different people may perceive things differently and at different levels. Gay person X may not take Manny’s remarks as bad as gay person Y may. Now with regards to your assertion on personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness without hurting others, Justice Jodie Ginsburg said that “The right to free speech means nothing without the right to offend.” Sure, Manny’s remarks may be deemed offensive but should the fact that his words are deemed offensive be used as an excuse for shutting down his right to free speech? As Justice Ginsburg said, that is exactly how millions of are silenced and how repressive regimes thrive. What protects people’s rights to say things others may find objectionable is precisely what protects one’s rights to object. You are correct to say that this issue is about personal liberty of the pursuit of happiness but the “without hurting part”, I’m afraid, is not plausible.

Morever, gay people aren’t pissed off at Manny for saying he is against same-sex marriage. He has every right to express his own personal beliefs, and I happen to agree with him that the church should not wed same-sex couple for the simple fact thst it is against their religion. You somehow twisted your arguments and implied that gay people are bashing Manny because of his stance on same-sex marriage which is blatantly false.

Actually, if you read my original article on this Manny vs LGBT issue, I mentioned that what infuriated the pro-gay crowd was Manny’s comparison of gays with animals. I also mentioned that Manny’s stance on same-sex marriage is nothing new.

Lastly, Manny spewed intolerance, which he has a right to exoress his ignorance but people has also the right to fight intolerance with intolerance.

Yes and I am not questioning that right. Afterall, that is part of free speech. Did I even remotely suggest to stifle the pro-gays’ right to bash Manny? What I am saying is that I find their bashing of Manny disturbing (probably as much as how they find Manny’s remarks disturbing), especially given the fact that they themselves are resorting to the same intolerance (perhaps even worse) instead of a more civil and substantive refutation of Manny’s words. Afterall, most of these bashers also assert that Manny is a stupid moron who should stick to sports rather than politics. It would have been nice if they took the high ground since in most likelihood, they are more intelligent than Manny. But hey… that is their choice. I am just merely stating my opinion and preference which all my readers here can take with a grain of salt.

What would my reaction be if I see members of the westborough baptist church rallying with placards saying that gay people are an abomination? I would insult the hell out of them and ridicule their fundamentalist beliefs. They display their intolerance, I will do the same.

Well, that is your choice and you have all the right to say what you want to say to them. Eye for an eye, right? But if you choose to do that, you do realize that you also lose the authority to claim tolerance and you’ll probably end up being no different from those fundamentalist nutjobs, right?

They are standing up for their beliefs and I would, too. Bigots and ignorant fucks should not be tolerated.

Really? Bigots and ignorant fucks should not be tolerated? You do realize that you may appear to those folks as a bigot and an ignorant fuck as well, right? You don’t share the same beliefs and what you hold to be (factually) true may be deemed as bigotry and ignorance for them. Surely you believe that they have no right to impose their beliefs on you, right? So what right do you have to impose yours on them?

Will u tolerate someone who bash your personal beliefs?

I deal with this all the time. 🙂 hehehe And yes, I do practice tolerance most of the time. Sure there are times I fight back and fight fire with fire but hey… nobody is perfect. 🙂

Me thinks it is time for you to get off your high horse

What high horse are you talking about? I was merely offering a critique on the vitriol and in this article I was merely pointing out that the claims of a lot of pro-gay folks with regards to the nature of homosexuality may not hold water. I think you should take a pause and have a nice cold drink to relax. 🙂 Thanks for reading!

benign0: Actually, the same principle applies to Pacquiao’s very presence in Congress. It could be argued that the way Filipinos vote incompetent politicians into office can be described as “abhorrent”. But that opinion does not necessarily make that sector of the electorate less entitled to express their will through their vote.

Robert Haighton: It seems that people are looking for excuses to make homosexuals look unnatural and so not give them the right to marry.

My perception, opinion and view is this: I see that females fall in love with females. What the heck. I am not looking for evidence – scientifically or otherwise. They are just there. I easily accept it. And then they want to marry. Okay, why not. If I can as heterosexual, then you (lesbian) must also be able to marry.

Do they ruin the family code? Should I mind? The individual personal rights exceeds that.
I dont expect gays and lesbians will get the right to marry in a church or mosque very soon. Probably never. I am sure, most of them dont care about that as long as they can have a civil marriage/wedding. And I really dont care if there is a gay gene or not.

I dont even understand why I (as male) do have (2) nipples. Can somebody explain me that? Was that part of god’s plan?

Pepe Rep: Thanks for this piece, Hector. The reaction to this whole kerfuffle was just amazeballs! LOL. But really, if the issue is homosexuality and its genetic origins let the biologists settle that (although, I think, psychologists and sociologists may be better equipped at this time due to the lack of supporting hard scientific (physical, biological) evidence, come on, personal experience and simplistic observations do not count). If the issue is morality of it and its distinctions (orientation vs actions/behavior), let that be a discussion within moral philosophy. And if it is about same sex marriage (which is also quite different from discussing same sex unions and same sex relationships), that is quite a socio-political question. It’s ultimately pointless to discuss whether it is natural or unnatural (whatever that means) when we are talking about implications on public policy, constitutional law, human rights. It becomes a red herring. What is the issue really? That has got to be defined clearly to reduce the heavy cloud of highly emotive distractions that abound. So let’s be very precise in our discussions: I don’t think same sex marriage is good for society. Some may argue along the lines of evolutionary implications and its undermining of our survival as a species, that may still be too broad and quite faulty in its assumptions, but I would take this route: Biologically, the truth is only a male and a female can reproduce, anthropologically, the truth is that men and women are different and these differences matter especially that sociologically, the truth is that children need both a mother and a father. So same sex marriage goes against those truths and it may have severe consequences to society. This of course does not mean that same sex relationships should be banned, it isn’t and it shouldn’t be, people should be free to engage in the relationships they prefer be it same sex, polyamorous, adulterous, or even incestuous, these may not even be banned and people are doing it in the Philippines and no one needs to be punished for these taken my view to the extreme. However, these cannot be considered marriages for the purposes of the state and at the same time no individual liberty or rights are being infringed, just because these relationships fail to acquire government entitlements.

Robert Haighton: Pepe, okay lets take a lesbian couple that is not married. One of the 2 women just goes to a sperm bank (yes available in Europe, but at least in my country) and let those sperm cells be inseminated into her womb (together with her own fertilized egg cell of course). Now, I have a vivid imagination and fantasy that a gay – unmarried – couple can do something similar. All they need to do is find a woman who will carry the fertilzed cells inside her womb. So to only allow same sex relationships dont wash bec it is not good for society (according to you). All the above is already taken place by heterosexual couples that cant get kids (for some reason and/or causes; IVF)

Pepe Rep: I’m not sure exactly which part of my argument you are trying to rebutt here, Rob, but I have an idea so thanks for engaging. I think the main point is that as you intimated what is “good for society”, not just according to me or you but what we can democratically agree about it. 50 years of robust studies involving fatherlessness have implied, to quote US president Obama in 2008: “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” The issue also involves institutionalising some “right to have children” leave alone, the “right to get married” (SCOTUS somehow deduced such a thing) without due reference to those who don’t have and haven’t gotten, are they somehow deprived of some right or are they less of a human being because of their circumstances? Not really. It does not stand in rigorous legal scrutiny. Also, what does that say about the rights of children? So, does same sex marriage promote what’s “good” for society? With respect to fatherlessness, no, simply because, while we are not criminalising same sex marriages and families, or banning sperm banks and adoption for childless heterosexual couples (which, by the way, are not guaranteed to not have children – a key difference between the childless couple and same sex couples), we will be, through the power of the state, in effect, instituting (or worse, incentivising) fatherlessness. I shudder to think about motherlessness, it might even be far worse. There just isn’t enough studies yet. We may be seeing it already in OFW homes, but the data has to be collated. I hope I got your point correctly. If not, feel free to clarify your position. Thanks!

Robert Haighton: Pepe, Thanks for responding. I am not gonna say that my country is the best. I guess, most Filipinos will label my country as hell on earth (legal divorce, legal same sex marriage, legal abortion, legal euthanasia). Probably either all those surveys/studies do not apply to European/Dutch cases or the Dutch government had other reasons/motives why they allow legal same-sex marriage and to let those couples raise kids.

Anyway, there was no revolt and no big protests. Probably only from the religious political parties (we only have 3 religious based political parties and those parties have not that many supporters to make a difference). Now, since 2001 we have legal same sex marriage and I cant say my country has become (more) chaotic or even getting close to a dysfunctional situation. Nobody (well for sure the majority) is not and was not looking for moral, ethical, scientific excuses to not allow gay/lesbians to marry each other.

Just assume that my personal view is to be against same sex marriage, does that give me the right to stop you (in case you are gay and wanted to marry) from having a legal same sex marriage? No. It only means that I myself will never engage in a same sex marriage.

Besides all that we also have rules that you (as quardian/parent of a child) can be taken away from your own child, regardless of your sexual orientation/preference and your gender. So you will lose all parental rights over your own kid(s). In short: my country is not turned upside down, no chaos. The country is still going strong.

My country has a more “I” (me, myself and I)-culture. And I dont mean selfishly. I mean: “you can/will not bother me and I will not bother you” & “I dont mind what you do with your life”. I like to call that “being practical”.

So in that context, giving gays and lesbians the right to marry is not bothering me at all. You are not interfering my private space. Gun ownership is interfering with my private space. So I dont think that my government will ever allow that.

It also helps a great deal, that we slowly but surely distance ourselves from religous indoctrination (as most will call it). It takes away free will; it limits our free thinking. Mind you, till the 1950s or so, we hardly had any of those legal rights bec we were still thinking in line of religious doctrine.

Let me give you a brief insight on the 3 religious based political parties in my country. We have three of them. The CU (Christian Union), SGP and CDA. If the SGP would be in power, they will bring us back to pre-WW2 era. Only the male can be the breadwinner; the woman must stay at home and clean the house (she is not allowed to wear pants but only a knee high skirt), raise the kids; no television; no internet; no pop music; and sunday is the rest day.

Pepe Rep: Well, Rob, I’m not part of those “most Filipinos” that label The Netherlands as “hell on earth”. That would be exaggerating, and I’d agree most Filipinos tend to exaggerate. I am pro-life, I am not sure of my position on euthanasia yet, however I like your decriminalisation of drug use, although my model for that is still Portugal. 😉 I’m more interested to see what is warranted by the data on same-sex marriage, after all it is a relatively new phenomenon (yet, decades of solid research on fatherlessness should cast doubt on the success of same-sex parenting despite all the small-scale research the media hypes) Let me just say that I’ve always maintained that the proper barometer for social policy isn’t what individuals, such as yourself, think they observe. So what you think of your country’s experience is largely moot. Sorry but I just can’t take your word for it. Only when we see collective data processed, we feel the real pulse of the nation. So let’s see the data: As early as 2004, the Dutch “increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant because they have been persuaded that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid lifestyle choices…” (Mourik et al, 2004) Marriage already lost its place as the fundamental building block of society in the Netherlands and is now considered an “endangered institution”. In 2009, Dr Mircea Trandafir of Canada’s Université de Sherbrooke studied the effects of same-sex unions, partnerships (1998) and same-sex marriage (2001) in the Netherlands and “the results suggest that same-sex marriage leads to a fall in the different-sex marriage rate… the different-sex marriage rate falls after the legalization of same-sex marriage.” In any case, let me be clear, it isn’t same-sex ‘marriage’ that led to the demise of marriage if anything it is just another nail in the coffin that has already been built from decades of the idea that marriage is all about the feelings of adults, it is no wonder that in the Dutch experience and collective mindset, parenting has been jettisoned from marriage. I’m sure you’ve heard of the flitsscheidingen (“flash divorce”) where heterosexual couples get the option to sort of downgrade their marriage to a legal partnership due to the same-sex marriage act of 2001. (Antokolskaia and Boele-Woelki, 2004 and Manting and Loeve, 2004). Once you redefine marriage from its essential property of (a) one man, one woman, other essential properties, (b) permanence, and (c) exclusivity, crumble as well. So there are unintended consequences of the legislation. These are serious considerations to dismiss these as “moral, ethical, scientific excuses” is rather callous and to think that same-sex marriage does not adversely affect society due to its inherent characteristics (guaranteed biologically infertile, anthropologically non-complementary, and sociologically creates fatherless/motherless children and politically incentivises it) would be naive. Sure there are plausible reasons why European and other countries approved of such policy for all we know we are dealing with competing objectives and we may be missing the forest for the trees as the studies seem to show, by the way, Antokolskaia and Boele-Woelki’s 2004 paper is entitled “Dutch Family Law in the 21st Century: Trend-Setting and Straggling Behind at the Same Time”. That says a lot. Sure, you may think that your country has not been turned upside down, that would be exaggerating too, no one expects total chaos from the evolution (destruction?) of the family as a basic social institution, there are far bigger and more immediate challenges we face globally. However, it is good to put our houses in order. If Barack Obama in 2008 is right in his comments I quoted above, all the more, any state has valid interest in strengthening traditional marriage and the family to relieve further burdens to society and the welfare system. With respect to your additional comments, again, I am for liberty, I ultimately do not want the state to be in the business of our bedrooms that’s why I don’t understand why gays want the entitlements of state-sanctioned marriage if not to legitimise their preferred relationships and to gain social acceptance for their orientation and lifestyle which sadly many still view disparagingly when proper distinctions can be made to reduce unnecessary friction, where as I have mentioned earlier no one’s rights is actually being infringed, SCOTUS CJ Roberts said that too. However, the state is already in the business of regulating marriages and it may be legitimately under its interest to make sure new citizens are created and grow in the right environment. Government must uphold the gold standard without banning other forms of relationships. Gays can and should be able to love and form families as they see fit, there is no need to criminalise that, but to incentivise it is another thing altogether. Not all sexual relationships are equal and not all relationships can be considered marriages for the purposes of the society. Again, I appreciate your engagement. 🙂 I do hope that I may not be painted as being bigoted or homophobic because these ad hominems has misconstrued a lot of us already who care for our homosexual friends and family members but just cannot agree to same sex marriage. Admittedly there are those from both sides who distort our views but I try my best to present my views (although I tend to ramble) and represent the views of those who do not agree with me so the conversations are productive. 🙂

Robert Haighton: Pepe, Is being pro-life, no ifs, no buts or …..?
decriminalisation of drug use => this only applies for soft-drugs. Not for hard-drugs.

For me, its too long ago what my government’s ideas were to allow gays and lesbians a civil wedding. I can only guess that the articles you mentioned were no issue at that time. Maybe they were too focused on equal human rights, I don’t know.

What I do know is that to make such a (new) law, the Constitution had to be changed first. And that is a long tedious process. That’s why they come up with a – so called – transition phase/model. So they came up with 2 new forms of relatonships that gave the same rights as a civil wedding. That is “living together contract” and “registered partnership”. These 2 forms give 2 people the same rights and same responsibilites/obligations as a civil wedding.

I cant give you any statistics about how many homosexual couples (married or not married) do have kids (via IVF, adoption or otherwise). In case you are curious, you may want to try the Dutch national bureau of statistics (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: http://www.cbs.nl/).
Again, if one is gay and wants to live his life the way he wants then that is peachy and swell. And if a gay man or lesbian woman mistreats her/his kid(s), he/she will be reported to the authorities. This also happens with heterosexual couples. The overall sentiment that I get while talking with my friends is that the topic of homosexuality is a non-issue. And talking about that topic is not a taboo.

Last but not least:
Everything that happens in the Philippines also happens in my country. We also have poor – or less privileged – families. On the other hand, everybody can make big money here (in a legal way), also those who come from less privileged backgrounds. They just have to grab the opportunity when it arises. And we all need a little luck now and then. And you need to have parents who stimulate and encourage you to mold one’s talent. In most cases a rough edged diamond (= talent) needs to be molded into a beautiful diamond. And then that beautiful diamond can shine. But if talent is not recognized it also cant be molded. And if parents are not the types who encourage and stimulate, well then we are wasting our own kids and basically ruining their future.

Pepe Rep: Hi again Rob (I hope you don’t mind me calling you Rob or do people call you Bob? Or just Robert?) Anyway, just a little off-topic: Pro-life “no ifs and no buts” may be too strict, we also have to be expedient sometimes but exercise restraint when treating life even if we are not sure. The best part is we are already past the time when we have to choose between life of the mother or the child thanks to technology, and most mothers of “unwanted” babies no matter what circumstance will choose life anyway. With regards to drugs, yeah, Portugal also distinguishes among drugs and their rehabilitation program has been working well for over 12 years now.

I didn’t quite get your responses to the papers I’ve cited, 2004, 2009, those are fairly recent for social science. My point in citing those studies is simply that there are unintended consequences brought about by any legislation redefining marriage to which even The Netherlands experience. This isn’t an equality issue as I noted in the above, and as I also have demonstrated in the above, it also isn’t a civil liberties issue. One caveat is that we have yet to see its specific effects since I understand that this is a relatively nee phenomenon. My guess is, based on decades of research on divorce and fatherlessness, that it would be to the detriment of the children or new citizens and we can only expand our welfare states so much, and given that the Philippines is a third world country, strengthening the family would ease the burden on welfare, retaining the traditional definition of marriage would be more prudent and practical. Flitsscheidingen, paved a way for heterosexual couples to circumvent the divorce process that are tedious for good reasons, I mean there are some states in which it is easier to get a divorce than to replace a faulty fridge. That says a lot about our culture too and it is made readily available as what logically follows from redefining marriage. You said so yourself, “you need to have parents who stimulate and encourage you to mold one’s talent”, so there’s been a significant rise and continued trend throughout the decades in The Netherlands of out-of-wedlock children, how can we better develop those diamonds in the rough when the place or the environment where they are supposedly polished are breaking down? When we have part-time or largely absent mothers and fathers. Of course, homosexual couples can have children through technology, there is even talk about an artificial womb! However, it does nothing to the truth that the baby has a biological mother and a father to which she has rights to and that sociologically speaking she has rights to a married mother and father who both anthropologically bring complementary benefits to the table. With same sex marriage, we are actually instituting fatherlessness and motherlessness and I’ve let Mr Obama tell us its implications to the society based on the studies; the rights of children once again have been sacrificed for the desires of adults. Given this, I maintain that agree with you “if one is gay and wants to live his life the way he wants”, in fact even in the Philippines, one actually can to a certain extent, because it should not be at the expense of the rights of others such as children, that’s just not “peachy and swell” we delude ourselves if we say it is. I also agree that “the topic of homosexuality is a non-issue. And talking about that topic is not a taboo” I’d say the same for all other sorts of topics, no sacred cows! We should all stop it with the political correctness already such as calling people names: “islamophobes”, “homophobes” and “bigoted”, as it severely stifles the free exchange of ideas, we’re all better than that. But we should continue to discuss it as civilly as possible; homosexuality is a multi-faceted topic and it is very easy to create more heat than light. Again, thank you for your thoughts, Rob! I really appreciate it. 🙂

Robert Haighton: Pepe, I really don’t mind how you address me as long as I get it that you responded to a comment of me. Otherwise I may/might not reply. However, being called Bob in my own country has never happened. Robert is common, Rob is rare. (When my niece was very young, she couldn’t pronounce the R, so she addressed me by the name of Lob instead of Rob. As you maybe probably have figured out by now, we don’t use words like Kuya, Ate and Dong).

For me personally, a pregnancy as a result of rape is unacceptable (if I were the partner of the raped woman). I really don’t think I can handle/manage such an event. Let alone, the fact that I don’t think I want to see that boy/girl bec it will always remind me of not being a part of me and not being made out of love. And now the harshest part: I don’t think, I will want to work for that kid (in that case, I will be the guardian and not the parent). Hopefully, my partner will have the same sentiment/mindset. Pls understand me correctly: I will never blame my partner for being raped, she disnt asked for being raped. That’s why my POV is that rapist should be jailed for life without parole. And another POV is that in such cases I advocate/support abortion. The kid is not carrying my genes and it was not made out of love by very likely a complete stranger. When it comes to decriminalizing soft-drugs, I was and am still not sure what to make of my own view about that. Maybe probably it will lead to more petty thefts to get their fix/shot.

Re your cited studies:
Maybe politicians think that it simply doesn’t apply to the Dutch scene. And that also the Dutch people are also not bothered by it. Normally and ussually, such “big issues” will be published in daily newspapers, especially in the quality newspapers. And of course in medical and/or psycholigical/sociological journals. Most legal divorces are settled smoothly and will not take that much time. Most used reason for a divorce (in a court near you) is irreconcilable differences.

O/T:
If you got the time, maybe you want to read something about the “new” Dutch phenomenon called “vechtscheidingen”. A legal divorce process that doesn’t goes smoothly. Each party fighting over visitation rights or even over the micro-wave. I have friends who engaged in one of the 2 new forms of relationships (mentioned in an earlier comment) and they have kids. And everything goes according to plan. They are performing good in school and the 2 kids are social, smart, bright. Another friend of mine is married (civil and in church) and they decided to not procreate for the sake of both their careers.

Now let me tell you something personal about myself in regard to relationships and having kids of my own.
To make that decision to wanting and having kids, it is important that all the circumstances/surroundings are beneficial for the future kid. This include: not living in a war-zone (example: Syria), not living in territories where my kid can not excel (typhoon, earthquake, landslide, violence, civil war, corruption, poverty, hunger). On top of that both my partner and I have to be ready to become parents. Physiological, psychological, health-wise). And the income of both parents need to quarantuee a possible future for the kid. As you may know, “Utang na loob” is not part of the Dutch culture at all. Children do not and don’t have to take care of the parents. That will only limit their chances of a good future. And its selfish to make kids and then let those kids work for me. That is not what I see as good parenthood.
Finally, I don’t want to become another statistics and end up in a divorce. So, I want to pick a quality person as my partner. If she is not there, then probably I will stay single. I just refuse to accept mediocraty in one’s mindset and thinking. And I am sorry to say but I (together with my partner) will decide about life (procreate) and not some guy living up there.

Pac-Man vs Pepe
There are 2 things I didn’t like about Pac-Man’s statement. He didn’t show his own opinion (he just copied something out of a book, the bible) and the comparison he made with animals. If he dropped (not uttering that last sentence) that very last sentence, Nike would still be with him. And that is what I like about your comments: you don’t throw the bible at me. You go deeper in the material/topic.

Robert Haighton: Pepe, I am not here to convert people to atheism. I am not gonna say that the Philippines have worse problems than homosexuality. That implies that homosexuality is a problem. I don’t think that homosexuality in the Philippines is a problem. They have no equal human rights. They probably don’t have the right to legally or even illegally adopt kids. So how can we describe that as a problem? But the Philippines do have serious problems. Unless of course they are okay with the current status. If they really want to get rid of those problems its really about time to start facing them. Even a lousy TV network can never be part of the solution to get rid of the major problems. The problems lay within the population. I am not poor bec we have a non-corrupt government. I am not poor bec my parents stimulated and encouraged me to use my talents. And they would have done that also in case my government was corrupt and/or if all the TV networks aired lousy TV programs. Yes, I was raised an atheist. But that doesn’t mean that my parents would have done things differently. Talent is talent. Only in my case, my talent wasn’t god given. Oh and some things are not regarded as a talent. Everybody can clean a house (dust, mob, vacuum clean) and everybody can cook (how difficult can that be?). So I don’t consider that as a talent. And if I cant cook, I can always follow a crash course.

Pepe Rep: All right, it’s Robert then! Just some note on the abortion and rape: One, these are minority cases, and two, it would be better to ask the pregnant victim of rape and that’s exactly what they did back in the 1980s still to date the most recent biggest study on the subject of psychological effects of abortion with pregnant rape victims. Dr Sandra Makhorn found out that around 75-85% of these victims chose against abortion with several reasons one being that 70% of these mothers believe abortion is immoral because it is another act of violence (just like rape) perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Also, as they have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive. Also some have suggested that these mothers felt that going through the pregnancy and giving birth conquers the rape, ending the cycle of violence. There are other reasons stated in the interpretations of the study and other studies such as Maloof, 1979, but my final thoughts are that abortion isn’t some magic turn-back-time pill that makes rape victims unpregnant, it is almost always also a traumatic and stressful procedure, and lastly, we ought to exercise special restraint because we still do not scientifically know for sure when life begins. Hypothetically, as the partner, or even really as an outsider, I can never truly comprehend the depth of violent acts of rape and, according to the study, abortion to women. Also the women themselves felt that they can love the child regardless and it is also not his/her fault. Yes I’d agree with you that rapists must receive the toughest penalties also, although I think you also, like me do not agree with the death penalty, as most of my Filipino compatriots clamor for. On soft drugs, I’d rather educate people on its effects but we have to treat it like tobacco and alcohol, which may even be far more destructive and addictive. I want to believe that we are all capable deciding what’s best for ourselves individually and that we all would want to have the best of health. Government doesn’t have to do it for us. But for hard drugs maybe some stricter regulation is needed but that also gives ammunition to the black market as we see now, bootleggers also abound, just as in the past when alcohol was immersed in prohibition so it will all be more unsafe just as it is now. Violence ensuing from drug use can be dealt with separately just as with other crimes to persons and property. On the studies I’ve cited, yeah, perhaps, we all know how politicians operate. In any case, we have yet to see and learn from your experience there are a lot of other problems The Netherlands is facing such as the economy, the eurozone, the refugee crisis and an ageing population. “Irreconcilable differences” is the sort of standard response (excuse?) for getting a divorce, that’s as vague as it gets. I’m at least delighted to hear that you are willing to wait for the right partner and I also find your ideas about parenthood and “utang na loob” refreshing the only thing that would be better to hear for me is that if you were actually an average Filipino, that kind of thinking would indeed be even more amazing for me if majority of my countrymen were to think like that. Thank you for even sharing your very personal insights! I agree that it’s still up to you as a couple to decide when or whether to have a child.

On your additional thoughts, yes we all face a lot of problems in this country with limited time we can only address so much. Even that is a democratic decision, I mean the people through their lawmakers get to decide our priorities. I think I made my point clearly already with respect to same sex marriage and why it will be a problem for the Philippines and how it is a problem so far even in the Netherlands; I have also made my point that this isn’t an equal rights issue nor it is an infringement of individual rights: CJ Roberts said in his dissent to Obergefell: “…the privacy cases [such as Griswold, Lawrence] provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State.” Yes, homosexuality is not a problem in the Philippines, it should not be, anyone should be allowed to live as they see fit as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others, but same sex marriage is a different thing altogether, anti-discrimination laws are also quite different and should be discussed further. Finally, I respect Pacquiao’s views and convictions. It would be presumptuous for me to claim to know what’s in his head or how anyone processes their claims. Almost no idea ever since is really original, even I had to rely on other people’s research and find out for myself if these are warranted. I certainly don’t agree with his “worse than animals” comment and I believe that’s precisely what he apologized for. Just that but not his convictions. I try my best to clarify my positions, and I thank you for appreciating that. We can talk bible, religion and atheism if it is within the topic we can go deep into that too if you’re interested in knowing why I think, contrary to popular belief, Theism and even Christianity is a reasonable worldview. There is so much disconnect around online discussions about the topic of homosexuality and same sex marriage and it is very easy to create more heat than light. Anyway, this is getting too long already, but I’m sure to discuss with you again in other issues. It has been a good conversation with you Robert! Thank you very much. You have a good time and I wish you all the best in life man! 🙂

Robert Haighton: Re: this comment of mine
I waited quite some time before actually responding because of your last few sentences in your previous response. But because of the majority of your text, I really felt the need to answer. And I certainly don’t want to have the last word.

Pregnancy as a result of rape
Without having any numbers, I would and will certainly agree that it must be a rare occurring “event” (pregnancy as a result of rape). And yes, I also agree with you that the victim must have the final say in whether to opt for an abortion or not.
Although, I cant imagine that a victim wants to continue a said pregnancy for the simple reason/fact that every time she will see and look at her son/daughter she will always be reminded of the dreadful horrible event of the actual rape. Now, who wants that? Furthermore, the pregnancy wasn’t a result out of “making love” (there never was love to begin with). The son/daughter does have 50% of the genes of the biological mother. If the raped mother has a partner (boyfriend or husband) she can never say/speak “OUR boy/daughter”; at best she can only say “MY son/daughter”.
I, as partner of the raped mother (hence: my partner/wife), think I cannot live in an illusion that I have to work for and raise a kid that does not have my (and/or OUR) genes and that that boy/daughter will also remind me of that dreadful event. So both psychologically and practically, it is wiser for both parties to opt for an abortion. It may put a lot of pressure on the actual relationship if the pregnancy is continued eventually leading to a break-up. An abortion will not erase the event (of the rape) but maybe just maybe when the said couple have started their own offspring, time may heal that wound.
In case the woman is single (no boyfriend, no husband, no relationship whatsoever), I would also advice her to do to the same for the same reasons mentioned above.

Last but not least: I guess, you can compare this situation to what you mentioned earlier regarding 2 lesbians/gays raising kids. In the mentioned situation above, were I am the victim’s partner. I am NOT the biological father.

Studies/questionnaires/Research/polls
I can never object to an outcome of a study. However, I am not that naïve to question the used methods in ANY study. How was a study/questionnaire conducted/compiled, open-end questions/multiple choice answers/questions, was the interview done one-on-one (one interviewer with one interviewee), were the questions biased, what was the number of interviewees, where was the questionnaire held, were the interviewees chosen randomly; etc etc etc. In short: was it manipulated in such a way that the outcome becomes predictable?

I really hope that you are familiar with (in) the field of consultancy. Consultancy bureaus are often hired by governments to examine/investigate a particular department. The outcome of the investigations are almost always predictable even before the said Consultancy bureau gives a press conference regarding the investigation.

Example: A study done in the Dutch bible belt will give a different outcome then that same study done in say Amsterdam or Rotterdam. Or a study done in the southern USA states will also give a different outcome compared to that same study done in New York state.

Rapist(s): As long as I live, my country did not have and don’t have the death penalty (as possible punishment). Maybe some kind of removing the male genital as part of the punishment wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Or making him impotent for the rest of his life.

Life begins at….? / Abortion
The bible says – if I am not mistaken – right from conception. So to start a conversation about this topic with a strict religious person is useless. All I know is that abortion is legal till the 24th week and that most (or all) Dutch doctors build in a safety margin and will do it till the 20th week. “Famous” last few words
Thanks for your elaborate comments and your effort and time. Very much appreciated.

Pepe Rep: Haha! It’s okay Rob, I’ll let you have the last word on these. I pretty much laid out my case already. I am grateful to have learned new things from you! See you around here when I have the time to drop by and comment. 🙂

‘Pinoy Pride’ loses a key pillar as Manny Pacquiao crashes and burns by benign0
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2016/02/pinoy-pride-loses-a-key-pillar-as-manny-pacquiao-crashes-and-burns/

Pepe Rep: Exactly. His recent remarks (and apology) has not made any difference to my NOT voting for him. I don’t really mind that while Filipinos inconsistently laud the Pacman while ‘donning’ rainbow profile slacktivist pics in awe of Caitlyn Jenner and just about any other hyped sports star or celebrity comes out of the closet; that’s okay, people hold incoherent ideas together all the time, but we try our best to be consistent. What bothers me also is that we may fail to see that pinoy pride and gay/LGBT pride are more or less a similar form of groupthink and thinking in group rights (entitlements, to be more precise). Both somehow confer a sense of pride or victimhood for just belonging to certain privileged group, that’s no different from racism and the implications to social justice are worrisome. The worst is still, of course, the gist in your article, the bandwagon rides on both.

ChinoF: Nike of course doesn’t want to lose LGBT customers.

Pepe Rep: I believe this is already the second time they pulled out on Pacquiao. The first time was when he first expressed his views on same sex marriage then they came back together again somehow. Where are their principled convictions? Or is everything simply all about the monetary conviniences?

Why Manny Pacquiao is better than Donald Trump by Kate Natividad
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2016/02/why-manny-pacquiao-is-better-than-donald-trump/

Ren car: Yup! That’s the problem who spew their religious dogmas and get om their high horses as if they have the moral authority or worse, they think they fully understsmd what the bible says. These bible thumping self-righteous hypocrites are quick to judge without looking themselves at the mirror. There is abosolutely nothing wrong in announcing your religious beliefs in public but doing so by degrading others because they chose to live differently than yours in the name of God is so un-Christian like. Even the pope himself said he is he to judge others yet these bible thumping self-righteous hypocrites are so judgemental.

You hit the nail in the head when you brought up many of the self-professed christians engage in pre-marital sex which is clearly forbidden by the church doctrine yet they single out gay people for being sinful because they have sex with the same gender. As far as the bible is concerned, I do not see any verse that encourage pre-marital sex, let alone sodomy (blow jobs and anal sex) which I bet none of these numbskuls know that those are sins. I was born and raised as a Christian but I am ashamed to call myself a christian for the simple fact that I do un-christian things over and over again while these bible thumping self-righteous hypocrites have the audacity to refer to themselves as christians despite the fact that they constantly have sex before marriage.

Being a christian is one of the hardest thing a person can do. Just because you go to church or read the bible does not make you a Christian. Being a Christian means showing compassion to others, being tolerant of others, loving your neighbors especially those who are different from you, helping the needy, and other good deeds. I can never be a christian but at least I am being true to myself, and I do not judge people because of their sexuality albeit I do judge and despise bible thumping self-righteous hypocrites. Most of all, I do not proclaim to be a Christian for people to view me as a good person, or that I am religious and all that proverbial bullfuckingshit. it is sad to say that many , not all, filipinos are religious hypocrites who refuse to get off their high horses and hypocrisy is rampant in politics and the entertainment industry. Ever notice Celebrities who are morally bankrupt but they invoke God whenever they can? It literally makes me puke.

Kate Natividad: Exactly. I’d probably be a bit more private (or less showy) in the way I practice my faith (or better yet, leave the Church) if I cannot outwardly demonstrate that I am compliant with its dogma. Kung baga, those Sunday mass goers should at least respect the sanctity of Holy Communion and refrain from partaking of it if they are unworthy of it. Otherwise, they diminish its meaning.

Ren Car says: Agreed!I believe that religion is a personal matter. I hate preaching morality to other people because I am immoral myself. I do, however, don’t shy away from bashing self-righteous bible thumping hypocrites especially those who cherry pick bible verses and spew their ignorance which can be construed as hate. As far as I know, Jesus never preached hate. Just was all about love, acceptance compassion, and forgiveness. Then again, what do I know? I am not a bible scholar nor I profess to be morally superior to others 🙂

Pepe Rep: Thanks Ren Car for this comment and Kate for your article. 🙂 I don’t know about Catholic doctrine especially when it comes to the aspect of “salvation”, because you guys have “sacraments”. But basically in Christianity we are all sinners and in need of redeeming grace, so it makes no sense to even sort of be on your own high horse judging those “hypocritical” Catholics, that’s exactly the same self-righteous attitude we disagree with. We are all imperfect and inconsistent in the values we profess after all, as many say they are a work in progress under God’s grace. Now, be that as it may, the impression you get with Pacquiao’s initial words is that homosexual behavior is a worse sin than all of them, which is immaterial since all sins can be forgiven according to Christianity, you can’t just single it out and disregard the rest, we’re all in the same boat. When he quit his womanizing and all his vices, that’s positve progress for Pacquiao and it may show his regenerate Christianity for now. Being a Christian is indeed difficult but God has provided a way to empower us to progress, it’s not by your own bootstraps lang naman eh. What bothers me is that we may tend to prioritise authenticity over actual goodness and all the positive characteristics we aim for, a la Duterte and Donald Trump. That’s deeply concerning that just because we can’t seem to reach moral perfection (or even simply goodness), we will quit aiming for it for the sake of being perceived as unpretentious. You see, the charge of hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue. Again, failing to reach certain moral standards does not mean we are fakes and hypocrites, it simply underlines our need for humility and grace of God and others. The worse thing that you can do is to “leave church”, stop striving to be good that would be to lie as if dead when you can continue to struggle to live despite your faults and inconsistencies with God’s grace progressively making you better not just relying on yourself.

Ren Car: Pepe, I don’t rely on religion, or God, to strive for the better good. I rely on being humanistic. The Buddha did not worship any GOD but we was a moral person. You don’t need religion to be a good person. Manny used offensive words and people reacted to it. If I say that Christians are brain dead people who cannot think for themselves and who believe in Fairy tales or a talking and burning bush, I would expect people to bash me, and rightly so.

I don’t know what I am. I do believe in God but I do not buy everything what the bible says. I just go by the mantra, “treat people the way you like to be treated.” If I have done you wrong, you have every right to do me wrong, as simple as that. In fact, it is Manny who is singling out LBGT’s, and he is guilty of cherry picking bible verses which suits him. Last time I read, Tattoo is forbidden according to the book of Deuteronomy. Manny judge the acts of gay people based on this twisted interpretation of the bible yet his Tattoos are forbidden according to the holy book. Doesn’t that make him a hypocrite? How can I be a hypocrite when I am not preaching morality? The worse you can do is to denounce one sin yet you commit other sins, and you do not acknowledge your own sins. Even the pope said who is he to judge gay people?

And yes, I have been relying on myself since I can remember, and I think I have done a pretty good job albeit I sometimes pray but I do not ask for anything. I just pray to give thanks, and I don’t ask God to help me out, or tell people to pray for me. I believe in my capabilities and abilities. I only need God for his forgiveness and giving him thanks and the rest is up to me. I have left church a long time ago but I never lose my faith in God. You don’t have to go to church to have a sense of morality. In fact, many Christians commit the same sins over and over again, and they feel their sins will be forgiven if they go to confession and communion, or go to church, and commit the same sins they asked for forgiveness.

You can fool yourself. You can fool others by saying you are a regular church goer and a Christian but you ain’t fooling God. That is the truth, and nothing but the truth. To preach and not practice what you preach is a form of hypocrisy, especially if you degrade people who don’t share your religious views. I just call spade a spade

Do you know that the most peaceful countries in the world are all secular societies aka non-religious like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Austria. Well, Austria is kinda religious. Isn’t it ironic that the Philippines, who ranks as one of the largest Christian countries in the world, ranks 141? What does it say about our religious culture? Why would Manny single out the sexually preference of Gays, who, by the way, do not affect anybody, instead of addressing crime, corruption, abduction, adultery, fornication, which are immoral and affects our society? There are far more important issues than meddling with sexual activities of gay people. It just does not make sense to me at all. Perhaps you can shed some light as to why our country is ridden with all kinds of crimes given it is a Christian nation and those bible thumpers are so proud to claim? Don’t you think there is something wrong with this picture?

If a majority of Filipinos are Christians, or self-professed Christians, then why is crime so rampant? Do you really believe that a Christian will be saved by going to church and praying even if they WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY commit the same sin over and over again? Is their excuse is, “we are humans and are fallible” yet they are quick to judge those who do not follow the teachings of the bible when they do the same exact thing? Isn’t that a blatant display of hypocrisy or ignorance? Would you listen or take an advice from a priest who is also a pedophile? Better yet, would you listen to a speaker who preach about abstinence when she herself had been knocked up twice and she is not even married? Doesn’t this kind of hypocrisy makes you ill? I know many Christians who do not preach – they just keep to themselves because they are cognizant of the fact that they sin, and feel that they do not have the moral authority to preach. I thought being a Christian is to spread love, not a bunch of bullfuckingshit?

Pepe Rep: Thanks for responding Ren Car! I always enjoy a good engagement of ideas. I am thankful that you still believe in God irrespective of your other views, because I think that is the only way for anyone to make sense of objective morality (among other things), which is what we are discussing. So at least that is clear between the two of us. I agree that you do not need religion to be good, but you need God to be good, as “He” represents the standard of morality which I hope you realize we all cannot reach by our own merits alone no matter how much you think you’ve “done a pretty good job”. I know that The Buddha is an atheist and that Buddhism is largely non-theistic but even in Christianity we are all created in the image of God and thus even atheists have a moral compass. Manny indeed used offensive words and I make no excuses for it, I even said this is terrible language and that is exactly what he asked forgiveness for. Just that. You have all the right in the world to say that “Christians are brain dead people who cannot think for themselves and who believe in Fairy tales or a talking and burning bush…” and that has already been said over and over again mostly by the misinformed, because it is also within the rights of the Christians to defend their views and prove you wrong just as much as LGBTs can prove Manny wrong. All free speech is fine, we ought to be mature and understanding that people can make mistakes, get misrepresented. The guy already apologized, so it takes really mature people to accept that he used wrong words but his convictions that homosexual behavior is immoral remain which is the point of Kate’s article here, the Catholic church, or Christians do think that homosexual behavior is sinful. Now with regards to morality, we all, in fact, have some form of moral code we profess and persuade others into you have just discussed yours (in your mantra “treat people the way you like to be treated”) the very same paragraph where you claim you are not preaching morality. The very fact of morally criticizing Manny is exactly a form of preaching your own moral code: “Manny is wrong, and this is right”. We can’t really seem to escape it. That is why I said the charge of hypocrisy is actually a tribute that vice pays to virtue, objective moral standards do exist exactly why we think Manny was wrong in his assertion that LGBT are “worse than animals” and that is what he exactly apologized for. The worse thing is not that just because others fail at certain moral standards but to think we no longer can “call a spade a spade” or discuss what is right and what is wrong. What happens to our justice system then if are all barred from evaluating (judging) immoral behavior? The pope is right I think, only God can ultimately judge people, but in an orderly society moral standards still has to exist and they do inform public policy whether we like or not. All laws have moral dimensions, the only question is which or whose moral code will we agree to accept to influence the laws of the land. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences and so we must continue to discuss civilly. I am also delighted to hear that you ask for God’s forgiveness and thank Him, and you know he can forgive us all, no sin is so worse that He cannot reach out to us. I hope that you will forgive Manny too. The idea of going to church may not be compulsory but it helps in relationship training, can you imagine humble sinners like ourselves recognizing our need for God’s grace get to meet and live in a like-minded community, an environment where we can live out our faith and strive to become better although we may fail at times. This also includes training all of us to actually love our neighbors exactly those who do bot share our views and not to degrade them. That is the purpose of the church among other things. It does help us become better people at least in my experience and maybe in Manny’s when he turned away from his old ways. God indeed cannot be fooled, and He knows we are all fallen and imperfect humans and can never reach His perfection, exactly why reached out and sent Christ. By striving we will become more and more Christ-like, that is the goal even if we fall over and over and over again. The worse thing as I said is to stop. It would be very presumptuous to say that peaceful countries are only those non-religious ones, I would ask you for correlation studies. We have so many problems that has nothing to do with our religiosity. Peace and prosperity are functions of economics and a myriad of other factors and so is criminality. Indeed there is something wrong with the picture as you say. I would judge the pedophile priests as well, they are immoral but does that mean all priests are? Just because of a few rotten apples (which we can expect) why would I give up on the church community? So as I have said earlier, all sins are equally forgiveable and we are all in the same boat, so I agree with you that we cannot say one sin is worse than others but these are all sins, immoral behavior just the same. Being a Christian is more than just spreading the love of God it is also exhorting and encouraging each other in varying ways to become more and more like Christ among other things such us helping the needy, upholding the law and justice, so many, yet very specific, things and above all loving God and I disagree that all these are just “a bunch of bullfuckingshit.” Anyway, thanks for your thoughts! 🙂

John: I love your reply. We are work in progress. Even failing, we don’t stop trying to follow God. Let us not lose hope and ask the grace of God often.

Pepe Rep: Thanks man! Some may think it is an excuse to continue sinning, but if we are in earnest in pleasing God and loving Him we would want to be better people even if it seems impossible. It is impossible but there are many who at the end of their earthly lives have trusted Christ and have lived righteously. With man it is impossible but with God it isn’t. I want that for myself. I’m sure many people do too. So we live one day at a time and do our best. If we fail, we take a few steps backwards but what is important is to press on moving forward. It is ultimately a personal journey, so Pacquiao may fail, our LGBT brothers and sisters may fail but that has no bearing on my journey and relationship with God. What I will choose to focus on is to be blessed and encouraged by their sincere faith in striving to please God, their rising up each time they fall. 🙂

Ren car: P.S. I do not think people are pissed off at Manny for being against same-sex marriage. That is his personal religious belief and People did not bash him for it. It is when he said that animals are better than gay people that ticked people off, and rightly so.

Pepe Rep: I thought that was precisely what he apologised for. He kept saying “…ang mali ko lang ay ang ikumpara ang tao sa hayop.” But just that. Not his Christian convictions which includes homosexual behavior as sinful or immoral to that we can say its “his personal religious belief”.

Vice Ganda’s vulgar behavior damages the image of the Philippines’ gay community by Ilda

Macgyver: Actually,Pacquiao is not comparing gays,lesbian or whatever to animals per se,but only those who are doing sexual act to their same-sex partners. Being born gay or lesbian is not a sin. It’s nobody’s fault. He or she can live a normal. If they want,they can also get married,but with the opposite sex,of course. It’s when they entered into a relationship with the same-sex that is considered a no-no. The relationship in itself is not a sin. But we all know what that relstionship entails,so the bible prohibited so that it never comes to that actual act. Now there is where Manny Pacquuao in that interview comes in.

Auric: But in general, people have needs, and since lgbt could only express their love with their partner w/c is most likely of same sex, i dont get it, accept lgbt but not the way they express love, it doesnt make sense. Catholic belief are forcing lgbt to be celibate, we respect your belief, but please also respect people who believes otherwise. Sexual pleasure is for all human to feel.

Amylance: But sexual act is for purposes of life propagation alone. Because the act releases cells intended to create life. T

Auric: If that is what you believe, i respect it, but lgbt have different belief, and if you will respect or at least have some tolerance about it, then we have peace. It is not as if 100% of people on earth are catholics sharing your beliefs, respect individualism, that is why lgbt leave the catholic community because they know it is against your belief, and that is respect. If only you could return the favor and not drag the people’s government in to your catholic beliefs.. much better.

Pepe Rep: Hi Amylance, I do not agree that the “sexual act is for purposes of life propagation alone”, I think it is also for the pleasure, emotional and soul-connection of the married husband and wife this is so they become better at becoming father and mother to their children. I mean even in the Bible we see in the Song of Songs how pleasurable and reCreational sex can be. What you may be emphasizing instead is that the feelings of sexual longings and pleasure during sex were created by God, and marriage was created to fulfill those longings. What St. Paul is saying (in Corinthians for example) is to direct those feelings to your spouse and no other and make sure that they are fulfilled within your marriage relationship, not outside of it. Yes, it is also biologically the life-giving act that is why marriage is instituted to protect the fruits of that act. The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so). Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point of marriage. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship. For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for civil marriage and the reason why the state is involved. Thank you!

Pepe Rep: Hi Auric, I will agree with Macgyver on this one. I understand your concern, but don’t forget too that Christianity and the Catholic church isn’t singling out LGBT on in this principle, it also excludes people who are single regardless of gender/orientation. Christianity in effect is “forcing [not just LGBT, but also single persons] to be celibate”. Simply because the consummation of marriage in sex is a special soul-joining and reproducing act. It includes spiritual, emotional and physical significance for a man and a woman which are individuals joined together in a biologically and anthropologically complementary act. Marriage protects this procreative act with exclusivity and permanency, this is for society to ensure that the sociological truth that children (new members of the society) need both their mother and father to grow well is met. The danger with the idea “sexual pleasure is for all human to feel” is that you make it into some sort of a right and then it separates the procreative and parental aspects of the sexual act, what’s more is that it also separates sex from the emotional bonds it naturally creates (for a good purpose). OK, you may say that what I’ve said is “only my personal beliefs”, but we can evaluate beliefs, there are truths and falsities – ideas we can judge whether correct or not, objectively factual or not, or good or bad for society. This is exactly why there is a debate and discussion on this. These are on different levels, so I’d agree that while the Catholic church has authority on this within their adherents, and adherents have the responsibility not just to obey, but read the bible for themselves and find out what it says there about homosexual sex, that does not mean this automatically translates to laws in the country with a majority Catholic or Christian population so we also must “respect people who believes otherwise”. Now, consider, when it comes to laws, that can be democratically decided with due reference to fundamental principles such as individual rights and personal autonomy. I am still not convinced that without same-sex marriage LGBTs are not treated equally and they are not capable of living out their lives and forming their own families as they see fit, even engaging in their own expression of love in sodomy for example. They are free to do so privately just as much as anyone else. So same-sex marriage is not required and it is not an issue of equality and individual rights because the state has interest in marriage, this isn’t about the Catholic church dictating upon everyone, it is the constitution of the Republic of the Philippines that tells all citizens and the government that it would be prudent to protect traditional marriage and the family based on the sociological principles I hinted at in my opening statement which is a purely secular consideration. So to sum it up, on one level I have told you why Christianity reserves sex for a married man and his wife exclusively and that on another level, the state honors that universal sociological principle to nurture the next generation properly. Feel free to respond for clarifications. Thank you!

auric: With all this ideals you wrote, the thing is, respectable lgbt members only request is to be recognize as a couple registered in nso, with all the rights if heterosexual couple enjoy ( sss beneficiary, healthcare…. you know what i mean) i dont care if catholic despises us, i heard enough insults about lgbt in my life for me to be immune to those things. That is why constitution should be changed, aside from the outdated family code, outside lgbt issue, there are a lot of things to be updated based on the changes of society today.

Pepe Rep: Thanks for the response Auric! Whether it’s “respectable/not respectable” LGBT, that would be too judgmental to me already. Tom Ford or Vice or Boy, it really does not matter to me, I would recognize their choices on the way they act in public, that is their branding. So no problem when they voice out their opinions, what matters to me is the content of their arguments and claims. We are talking about ideas only so in Filipino we usually say “it’s nothing personal” (walang personalan, debate lang). So that being said here’s why I don’t think same sex marriage is a civil rights and equality issue and why I don’t think it is possible to “recognize a same sex couple as a married couple in NSO with all the *entitlements* (not rights) married couples get.” On several levels, philosophical and constitutional – why the state can only recognize “traditonal” marriage. This is quite long but please hear me out, I also said this in my response to Amylance above: Only a man and a woman can marry, that is philosophically the essential property of marriage. Now, as for civil marriage, this traditional definition is an anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, a biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and a social reality that children need both a mother and a father. The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so). Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point of marriage. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship. For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for civil marriage and the reason why the state is involved. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not ever need government sanction or license to do so. Marriage predates government and so I think all Filipinos regardless of religion and orientation are free to love as they please, and if they want to settle down “with someone they love” they can do so, no one is preventing them from co-habiting. But that cannot be considered a marriage. Not all relationships are equal to and can be recognized as marriage. As I’ve said no one is arguing that we should extend the rights of married couples to those living in stable, loving, non-sexual relationships. Sexual partnerships are not the only form of family life. For example, siblings can live together in a domestic relationship, an elderly parent might live with one of their children. Such domestic relationships can exemplify admirable qualities, can be socially beneficial, are surprisingly common. However, they are not marriages and should not be equivalent to marriage in law. That being said I hope you understand my position. Thank you for your time, Auric.

Does One’s Right to Free Speech End Where Someone’s Feelings Begin? by Hector Gamboa
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2016/02/does-ones-right-to-free-speech-end-where-someones-feelings-begin/

Pepe Rep: I like that quote from Jodie Ginsburg because I believe in freedom of speech so much. I just kept wondering who Jodie Ginsburg is? The only SCOTUS justice Ginsburg I know is Ruth “Darth” Bader-Ginsburg and her uncanny ability to sleep at every State of the Union speech president Obama has made of late, love her btw, but I am not sure about her stand on the first amendment, since she is liberal and will probably agree with hate speech laws a la Ilda with her, quite frankly, overly imaginative panic about Manny Pacquiao if elected declaring an open season on gays. Anyway, I agree with it because it goes along the lines of what esteemed author George Orwell that “if liberty is anything at all it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” So feel free to quote this rather the one from this Jodie Ginsburg lady. One more thing, this also reminds me of Carlos Celdran and his disturbance (bible study meeting) and stealing private property (banners against RH bill) but I was quite surprised that the case was about “offending religious feelings” to which Ely Buendia of the Eraserheads tweeted and I agree: “Feelings, nothing more than feelings…” I can lay out my reasoning on why I don’t agree with hate speech and hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws (which sadly, Manny Pacquiao said he agrees with, he clearly isn’t thinking critically about what he’s supposed to do as a lawmaker, he needs to get clear on many issues before he gets my vote, and it looks like he hasn’t got much time and his record is dismal as a congressman). Basically these kinds of laws inhibit free expression and has a chilling effect much like libel and that it elevates status of certain groups of people (minorities) unnecessarily (and it doesn’t really help them) I kept warning Ilda about thinking about rights in groups that it is false. Individuals have rights and equally so, but you don’t get special treatment just because you’re Muslim, LGBT, Christian, Jew, woman or what have you. I can discuss these further if necessary. Thanks Hector!

Hector Gamboa: Hi pepe, Thanks for pointing it out. Jodie Ginsburg is the CEO of the Index on Censorship. When I was writing the article I must have switched to Justice Ginsburg because she’s the more prominent of the 2 Ginsburgs… at least here in the States. 🙂 So please disregard my reference to Ruth Ginsburg and please accept my correction to refer to the corrected Ginsburg, instead – the CEO of Index on Censorship. Thanks for reading! 🙂

Pepe Rep: No problem Hector! All the best! 🙂

Hector Gamboa: About the Celdran case, well unfortunately for him the Philippines does have a law against offending religious feelings. He could have gotten away with it had he done his stunt outside of the church premises and had he done it when there was no church session going on. I think the law ought to be repealed but judges shouldn’t engage in legislation on the bench. That is still the role of the legislature and not the judiciary.

Pepe Rep: Yes I’d agree. We do not need that provision. I also agree that any constitutional amendment must go through congress and not the Supreme Court nor the President. Thanks man!

3 Reasons Why I Approve Of Same Sex Relationships by Grimwald

Why I Find Vitriol Against ‘Homophobes’ Disturbing by Hector Gamboa

Ilda: “How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?” Aha…I have an answer to that: there are a lot of homosexuals who marry or have sexual relations with women and have children.

benign0: The irony there is that it was the very social stigmatisation of homosexuals for centuries that drove them underground and forced them into mainstream heterosexual traditions that resulted in offspring that would go on to continue to propagate that DNA.

ChinoF: I saw this thing about a study saying there’s likely to be no gay gene. I myself am not really convinced of its being genetic. But whether genetic or not, if there’s a gay person present, the issue for me is how one reacts. Should there already be condemnation and the bringing out of a shotgun, or will one just let them be? Nature vs. nurture doesn’t matter for me, I think that shouldn’t be the basis for determining how one should react to LGBTs.

Also, someone in the FB group told me about the gay movement starters, Harry Hay and David Thorstad, being pedophiles themselves and the gay movement actually being a way to get pedophiles being accepted(his source I found in Liveleak, but I wonder how to check its veracity). Pedos actually have a group called NAMBLA. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it may hold water. But the alarmism may cause backlash against LGBTs in general, and then people will want LGBTs arrested or have them attacked because of fear of pedos. I suppose internal conflicts (which always happen, anyway) would have caused the pedos to separate or just be sneaky among the LGBT movement today. I still have to see how to handle this information I happened upon.

Ilda: I can’t buy the notion that homosexuality is a choice. Why would a straight person choose to live a life that is still being shunned by a lot of people today? Besides, straight people are hard-wired into feeling repulsed by the idea of having sexual relations with people of the same sex.

Ptr. G. Ben M. Pabellon: God’s word, The Bible already prepared a clear definitive answer for you about 2000 years ago. Do read it, you have nothing to lose and eternity to gain. God bless you.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

Holy Bible, New Living Translation copyright 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, 60188. All rights reserved.
Learn More

benign0: It is when the Bible is referred to as the only source of “facts” to support all arguments, the intelligent discussion/conversation thus endeth…

Toby: Why would a grown person want to have sex with children? Is that also something that is hard wired? Then if they can’t help it who are we to judge….should this behavior also be debated?

Ilda: That’s different because they are preying on the vulnerable – children who are defenceless and who do not give their consent. Obviously it is an illness.

Aeta: Ptr. G. Ben M. Pabellon said a lot but really did not say anything—that applied to the rest of humanity.

Aeta: “It is when the Bible is referred to as the only source of “facts” to support all arguments, the intelligent discussion/conversation thus endeth…”

This is why when you are talking to a person holding a Bible, you are talking to an inanimate object. End of conversation.

Toby: “obviously it’s an illness” says Ilda…yeah because you said so and proved it scientifically….

Ilda: Yes, just in case you haven’t noticed, I am an expert in this topic.

Pepe Rep: Hi Ilda, tell us how it is different with practicing homosexuals and pedophiles, if indeed one “condition” is hard-wired and the other is illness. I don’t see the object (vulnerable or not) of their sexual desires has got anything to do with their sexual desires being just different or defective. Anyway, I do think homosexual behaviour is a mix of genetics (tendencies, hormonal activity), environment (circumstances affecting sexual development) and volition (lifestyle choices). Volition is a very important factor in brain development, something like “neurons that fire together, wire together”, that’s how amazing our brains really are; our choices and actions sort of shape our wirings too.

Ilda: For me pedophilia is different from homosexuality. Pedophilia is about power – adults picking on someone not their size. I consider pedophilia an illness because pedophiles obviously do not have empathy for their victims.

Toby: Sexual orientation can be shaped, Ilda. That is what the current scientific studies say. In simpler terms, environment plays the bigger role.

Ilda: My response is in my next article.

ChinoF: I see why people use the “natural” argument. They believe one should be allowed to do only natural things, and unnatural things should be allowed. For me though, there are some unnatural things that are OK, but some natural things that are wrong.

What if someone says, it is natural for me to kill someone when I’m angry with him; that would still be wrong. On the other hand, it is unnatural for humans to be flying. But we do so as a common form of travel. I might discuss more in an article but I’ve publish some others first. Of course, my stance is allowing gays to have their own relationships. Pedophilia indeed is different, but the source I posted above, gotten from that guy in FB, claims that the LGBTs have a “hidden agenda” of legalizing pedophilia. That one I consider just a conspiracy theory, unless more proof comes up.

For me, the naturalist argument in philosophy is not the only basis for determining right and wrong. There are also the teleological argument (it’s one’s duty to do good), and the consequential argument (we do/not do it because of its effect). As for the Bible, it is among the most misinterpreted works in history, simply because politicians (including those more a thousand years back) use it to justify their actions. It’s more of a source of principle and doctrine, not necessarily facts.

Rey G. Navarro: “Why should a straight person choose to live a life…” This is also what I am asking of alcoholics and gambling addicts, etc. Why do they choose their ways in spite of the havocs they make to their families? Interestingly many addictics and homosexuals have experienced “healing”. Perhaps, they just need to take the same medicine that only them can discover and know if they really want to be healed. Our duty now is to respect them and give all the supports they needed if they want to get healed.

Toby: For me pedophilia is different from homosexuality. Pedophilia is about power – adults picking on someone not their size. I consider pedophilia an illness because pedophiles obviously do not have empathy for their victims. Care the share that to all the members of NAMBLA then? My response is in my next article. I know. What I am trying to tell you is that the current scientific research shows that there is no gay gene.

Bonny: By definition: Pedophilia: noun, Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

This is not about power..it’s about sexual attraction. We are disgusted with this behavior and is currently not accepted in our society and rightly so. We label it an illness because a grown person is sexually attracted to a child. Is it fair for us to judge these people also…I’m here to say what is the difference?

oad777: Those children are adopted so they don’t carry any of their genes.

Lena: Enough throughout the centuries to ensure that the genetic component thrives? Are there related studies regarding this?

Pablo Solutin: Very well said. Many of those children became good citizens. My point is that there is always a choice. There is no perfect man or woman. Every one has a shade of both.

Trinity1: Aha…Then he or she is bisexual, not homosexual.

jaime: why would a man want to sex with another man? why would an adult want to have sex with a child? why would alcoholics, gamblers a addicts continue on being so even if it does not condone with society and even with the nature of existence itself? The answer is simple, it is the work of the devil.

Has the same sex marriage proposition pushed gay rights activism too far? by Add

Pepe Rep: OhEmGee Add, this is a mouthful! But it was a rewarding read. I was almost tl;dr but I don’t know I kept reading anyway. Thank you!

Just some notes:
(1) The argument that just because the LGBT community has suffered much in the past (as with blacks, Jews, etc.) that doesn’t automatically give them special considerations in law. It is good to recognize history but it cannot be any justification for urgency in demanding special entitlements from the state. Yes you and others may deconstruct my assumptions in this claim. But I only ask us to think about it really, I still don’t think this is an equality and individual rights or freedom issue.

(2) On The Cogito: Some have said that Descartes have reached the wrong (or indirect?) conclusion, it should have been “I think, therefore thinking exists.” But that’s just another trivia we can split hairs with.

(3) Dawkins on science and philosophy. We are now very used to thinking science is separate from philosophy. What nonsense is that right? The likes of scientists such as the recent Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Niel deGrasse Tyson, etc., who dismiss philosophy are doing amateur philosophy while masquerading it as science. Scientia is very much philosophy and it makes (doesn’t and cannot justify) the philosophical assumptions of (a) laws of logic, (b) uniformity of nature and (c) intelligibility of the universe, and to an important extent (d) ethics and morality.

(4) If there’s any philosophy prevalent now it seems to me it is Machiavelli and I forget which of the postmodernists, perhaps Focault, and to some extent Marx, who emphasized power struggles as the name of the game now. After all history gets to be written by the victors. That’s just my hypothesis.

(5) I don’t think the bible has all the answers but it has a lot at least especially the most relevant to our personal lives, living in a community, and it says a lot about governance as well. It really has a lot but we need to understand that for one, it isn’t a science textbook even though it touches on some scientific data such as the beginning of the universe, it’s probable ending, etc.

(6) When many writers are talking about one issue? Well, it may be popular that’s what largely what I can make of it.

(7) I appreciate the distinction you made between homosexual orientation (same sex attraction) and sodomy and other such homosexual acts. This is missing even in the biblical discussions

(8) I may have missed it but I think you could’ve included a discussion of the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State. This is a very important consideration. What does it mean? Are we talking about it’s two facets, (a) The Free Exercise Clause, (b) The Establishment Clause. Also in discussing this topic, you and other writers can explore further about “legislating morality” is it inescapable? Is there really an objectively neutral ground in lawmaking? That would be a very interesting and productive discussion.

(9) Finally, the main point of your piece, a good discussion on the implications of same sex marriage on society would be in place. Ilda may have excused herself on stating her stand on the topic and just focus on Filipino and general perceptions about homosexuality and to what extent Manny Pacquiao is responsible for his words. I agree with some of her points and disagree with others but I think she is generally also one of my favourites here. Yeah so you could’ve delved deeper into your thoughts about it. But maybe in another post or something because this one is really broad! I’m not really convinced with Grim’s reasoning or maybe I just disagree. Thank you for this piece, Add!

Add: Pepe Rep

(1) Of course, it doesn’t automatically give them special considerations in law.
If equality is what they demand, it is most reasonable demand. Sex doesn’t define a man; man is above sex. We see them as any other man. So, equality is just about correct.
But, you are right they are demanding something that seems to be beyond equality. Probably, because politics or other interests seem to have entered the picture.

(2) No, it was really cogito, ergum sum LITERALLY. He was trying to tackle the certainty of knowledge and trying to be innovative. He was looking for a methodology different from tradition. Don’t forget that Descartes was a very devout Christian. He wanted to find something not Thomist and Aristotlean, which is of course understandable because Thomism deteriorated into formalism and voluntarism with time. His argument to prove God was thrown away, but people kept reading him because his prose was great. He was a fantastic writer. While they threw away most of his theories, they liked his starting point, and that is were others tried if they could be better than him.

One thing very interesting now happening in Europe is that enrollment in Medieval Studies is dramatically up. With islamization and other problems, intellectuals are looking for that thing that they might have missed. This is the reason why Aquinas is some kind of superstar again. This is starting to be felt outside of the academe. In France, Catholic priests and medieval “experts” are becoming almost a fixture in TV talk shows supposedly very secular. This would have been unthinkable even five years ago. Is Europe getting tired of being atheist? We don’t know, but these are interesting developments worth monitoring, although very much in its beginning.

(3) Well, it is called scientism. Hyden below is correct. Philosophy is science without numbers.

(4) “If there’s any philosophy prevalent now it seems to me it is Machiavelli and I forget which of the postmodernists, perhaps Focault, and to some extent Marx, who emphasized power struggles as the name of the game now. After all history gets to be written by the victors. That’s just my hypothesis.” Oh, you got that bull’s eye. Liberals are quite Hegelian and Marxist, without the label of communist. Politicians try to be Machiavellian, we just had one, Gloria.

(5) Problem now is that so many groups have hijacked the Bible, and made it their exclusive possesion, and things can be emotional. People are forgetting it is still one of the oldest library. It is not a book, technically speaking. It can be studied as any other old book.

(7) “I appreciate the distinction you made between homosexual orientation (same sex attraction) and sodomy and other such homosexual acts. This is missing even in the biblical discussions” Yup, that is more philosophical and theological, rather than directly biblical.

(8) Prefer not to touch those issues. They are very complex.

I should be the one thanking you for reading and commenting

[I still would like to thank and further respond to add, but sorry, no more time]

Some Thoughts Spurred by the LGBT Discussion by ChinoF

Ren car: I partially agree with the author.Just because you are against gay marriage does not automatically means you are a bigot or anti-gay. I am for same–sex marriage ONLY when it comes to civil wedding, If a gay couple wants to get married in a church whose doctrine prohibits same sex marriage then that is shoving their beliefs on the church. However, If the church prohibits gay martiage in civil weddings then that’s shoving their beliefs as well. Gays just want to have the same rights as hetero couples, and the church has no business in people’s liberty and in pursuit of an individual’s happiness as long as you do not committ a crime.

It does not matter if there is a gay DNA or if it a choice. What matters is it is not anybody’s business if a person is gay or even if they view it as immoral, or a sin. There sre sins in the bible that christiand do every day such as eating pork and shell fish, not keeping the sabbath holy. having tatoos in thei bodies, having Sex before martiage, lusting after a person, binge drinking, gossiping, idolatry, wearing blings, wearimg sexy outfits, Lying, philandeering and adultery which many filipino’s are guilty of, etc. It is perfectly fine if you publicly announce your religious beliefs but to demean people basing it on a bible verse twisting it like a crazy fundamentalist fuckwit is just fucked up. I have known many christians who are hypocritical dumbshits – both straight and gays The fact is Manny was bashed bec he said that gays are worse than animals, not his stance on same-sex marriage. There are gay militants and there are crazy ass fuck christian fundamentalists. The answer is moderation. Many people just take the words of what people say as they are not capable of critical thinking.

Pepe Rep: Hey Ren Car! Because I care for you, man, I would want you to have good arguments. We do not share the same views I know you have your reasoned opinions (and personal style) and I have mine. Just a minor point: Do not assert the idea that it is a sin for Christians to eat pork or shellfish and not keeping the sabbath holy, tatoos and blings. These are the sort of arguments I see online which are misinformed about the bible and Christian doctrine, look it up. I will reserve my comments on same sex marriage and why I don’t think it is a constitutional rights issue in another comment to this article when I have the time. Good day! 🙂

Why Jessica Zafra fails in her crude attempt to defend ‘LGBT rights’ by benign0

Jose Mobo R.: Whenever a person argues from the point of view of his/her belief of an eternal absolute truth, expect the expected twisting of truth to suit his/her concept of a conceived absolute eternal truth which is the very reason of any religion.

Jan Michael: Beautifully said.

Pepe Rep: So tell us then, Jose, what is the actual truth?

T: you did not absorb his point. i pity the fool

Pepe Rep: *sigh*

[That was weird he clearly stated “…expect the expected twisting of truth to suit his/her concept of a conceived absolute eternal truth…”]

Fred Gonzaga: “Whenever a person argues from the point of view of his/her belief of an eternal absolute truth, expect the expected twisting of truth to suit his/her concept of a conceived absolute eternal truth which is the very reason of any religion.”

So if there is no absolute truth, how can I even believe your statement to be true?

Jeanne: Touche, Fred Gonzaga!

Lessons on Special Interests from an LGBT Activist’s Reaction to the INC Protest

At every chance she gets, Shakira Sison will try to pounce on religious views in the Philippines which she thinks are bigoted against her homosexual political interests and agenda. That’s the pot calling the kettle black on two counts.

Here’s her latest article:

“IMHO: Lessons on religion from the INC protest

All of a sudden we complain that a religion is pushing its way into our laws and into our government. Haven’t we noticed Catholic influence in our government and legislation before?”

And here’s my response:

Pepe Republika: It was not so much rage against a religious group per se as it was about traffic and indeed as you say “how quickly we react when we are the ones inconvenienced”; but that has nothing to do with religion (not even of separation of church and state) but by being inconvenienced.

I see this often in Shakira’s articles, a double standard against religious views, especially, the Catholic Church because it is perceived as influential and it opposes gay marriage. But what she forgets is that the CBCP has the very same right to “frequently influence lawmakers” just as much as Shakira and homosexual activist groups can. As much as CBCP “urges followers to oppose same-sex marriage”, Shakira, by writing this article and many such others, “urges ‘followers’ to push for same-sex marriage. Shakira and homosexual activists around the globe, also “frequently influence lawmakers” to create laws according to their [irreligious] beliefs. “Even if the Philippines is not a theocracy”, laws are morally informed, only question is, whose morality are we legislating? And while I agree that all laws “should benefit and protect all citizens and not just those belonging to certain religions”, laws must definitely take in special consideration the beliefs of the overwhelming majority with a caveat against infringing on fundamental rights such as freedom of religion (and irreligion) and other fundamental rights such as speech and expression – the right to mock others’ “faith in a magical god who is floating in the sky” (which is a rather daft thing to say, by the way, befitting only of online infidel trolls misinformed of theology and proper philosophy of religion).

Just a thought, though: Gay marriage is not a fundamental right, contrary to what Shakira and her fellow activists around the world would have us believe; the US Supreme Court also missed that point in a quite frankly, very shabby, Obergefell v. Hodges. So I’d encourage even homosexual activists to heed exactly what Shakira is saying “think independently [and critically], do not follow your LGBT activist leaders blindly, do not let them dictate what laws should be passed, because this interference inconveniences others and impacts their lives”. Think about the “marriage equality” sloganeering, deconstruct and digest it, does it really make sense? Do we really think all relationships (same-sex, polyamorous, adulterous, incestuous) are “equal”, and can be called “marriage” according to law and the state’s purposes (which is about the family, by the way, children, which are new citizens, the only substantive reason why government is in the business of marriages)? And can all these all be warranted with fundamental constitutional rights? Not really, as I have explained in all my other comments* around here.

Now, what I see here is exactly what we see in all kinds of minority movements, INC or LGBT, religious or not: “the feeling of marginalization that fueled this ridiculous protest didn’t come from nowhere. It came from believing that they are not heard, recognized, or liked. It came from knowing they will not be heard unless they stand in our way.” Isn’t that exactly what the LGBT activists are all about? I can imagine how envious most interest groups must be that the INC can muster enough warm bodies (I am not even going to comment disparagingly on their literacy) to cause such a disruption for all and the government to take notice. Million People March, anyone? and all our EDSAs and yes, LGBT pride parades; communist parties salivating at the idea of a cultural revolution that’s just as massive. It would be nice to mobilize enough supporters to get our “ouches”, however niche, heard. Of course, I am not saying these are all the same and that these various groups are willing to do it in the same manner, but that it is amazing to have a similar leverage, even just in public political perception.

And yet, to be fair, ultimately, isn’t that what we all want? We all want for the nation or society to recognize, accept and celebrate, not just to tolerate, our own belief systems and lifestyles (block voting, civil recognition of same-sex relationships) nevermind that the majority of our fellow Filipinos subscribe to a certain set of values that may be compromised, or others’ rights trampled upon. If there’s any lesson that we can take from Shakira’s opinion is that there are so-called minority groups that seems to share the same objective. It’s the same old lines, people; they start with cries of victimhood in the hands of the oppressive dominant majority (some are true, I grant that we have much to mature as a people culturally when it comes individually dealing with LGBT and “other people”, in general, yet most are overly dramatized and emotionally charged) and when they get enough sympathy and much coveted legislation, they will be the bullies themselves forcing us with the firm hand of the state to accommodate their desires with utter disregard for our values and beliefs, we’ve seen a lot of that in Western democarcies, in their media, lately. Yes, “we want others to stop following their religions mindlessly”, but why doesn’t the same idea apply to non-religious and irreligious agenda? See that’s where Shakira’s double-standard lies. Newsflash, it isn’t only “religious leaders” who are “meddling in our laws and in our lives”, everyone does it. It’s called a democracy.

**********

We have a reply!

Amparo Laya: “Yeah, let’s flog a wrong-headed lecture on prejudice to parade our own prejudices.  By lumping same-sex marriage with the incestuous, you have criminalized people who are in fact persecuted simply for loving people of their own sex.  Your class of prejudice is the type that translated into policy DOES trample other people’s democratic rights.  You have wholesale invalidated the lives built by same-sex parents and those of children of same-sex parents.  So I’d encourage you to “think independently [and critically]”; do not follow the law and the state’s purposes blindly.  Deconstruct and digest these laws your prejudice upholds.  There are laws that warrant changing and overturning if humankind were to evolve.”

Pepe Republika: “Hi Amparo! Thanks for your reply. I have much to say, and so let’s get to the facts and leave the snarky sarcasm by the door. First, I have no need to “lump” same-sex “marriage” with incestuous, polyamorous, adulterous relationships because they are in the same philosophical category. And even if we narrow it down to legal categories, these are still quite neatly “lumped together” to begin with. By your own line of thinking, I will also “have criminalized”, a brother and a sister, or three cousins, or four brothers who want to get “married”, “simply for loving people of their own sex or their own family, and I have “trampled” on their “right” to love more than one person. After all, if these have each others’ consent and they truly love each other, why can’t they get civil married, right? So, as Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent to Obergefell maintained, “it is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

Now, more specfically, in the case of civil marriage and why the government is in the business of which is a matter of orderly policy or compelling state interest. See Article XV of the Philippine Constitution, Sec. 2 states: “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State”. “Protected” against what? Well, exactly what I state above, and if you understand why government legitimately, not limiting marriage, but upholds its definition and so regulates it, you should also realize what the purpose is. See, I am not blindly following “the law and the state’s purposes”, because I think I have a fair understanding of why it is there in the first place: “This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to [prejudicailly] exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”

So “marriage equality” assumes all relationships are equal and can be recognized as marriage. Not really. No one is arguing that we should extend the rights of married couples to those living in stable, loving, non-sexual relationships. Sexual partnerships are not the only form of family life. For example, siblings can live together in a domestic relationship; an elderly parent might live with one of their children. Such domestic relationships can exemplify admirable qualities, can be socially beneficial, and are surprisingly common. However, they are not marriages and should not be equivalent to marriage in law.

Neither I nor the Philippine constitution, have “persecuted” or “have wholesale invalidated the lives built by same-sex parents and those of children of same-sex parents”. Dignity isn’t validated by opinion and the state, that’s the other mistake in sloppy Obergefell as Justice Thomas pointed out, dignity comes from innate worth which is only assumed and not justified by any human convention. Truth is, per CJ Roberts again (which is also true here in the Philippines), “the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.” So, it is false to say that my ideas “translated into policy DOES trample other people’s democratic rights”. So please, Amparo, special interest groups hiding behind “minority” labels do this all the time, most want to go beyond the Bill or Rights. Let’s not “convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand entitlements from the state”, which are there for sound reasons and not prejudice.”

**********

Here’s another, rather ranting, reply. I cannot post to reply to him. Anyway, my thoughts on this are further below:

Diego Madlangbayan:  “@Pepe Republika: I have so  many rebuttals to your comment, I don’t even know if I can put them all down into writing without turning into a 23-page mini-thesis on the hypocrisy of the government claiming to have a separation of church and state. I will try to keep this to a bare minimum in both words and simplicity.

1. Though the Philippines is primarily a Roman Catholic country, its constitution states that it will uphold the separation of church and state. In its simplest form, it means that the government should NOT endorse ANY religious belief its affairs, whether upholding laws (judiciary), or creating laws (executive and legislative). What this means, is that when making laws or deciding disputes for people of the land, the government should disregard ALL religious beliefs. The government should uphold what is better for ALL people, not just the majority, regardless of beliefs.

2. Your comment: “laws must definitely take in special consideration the beliefs of the overwhelming majority with a caveat against infringing on fundamental rights” just irks me to no end. All I can say is: NO. The law should serve all people, provide the same rights to all who live under said law, regardless of belief. (But yeah, I agree that one can practice their own religion for as long as they do not infringe on others). There should be NO special consideration for the majority. The law was made to protect the majority and the minority. ESPECIALLY the minority.

3. Another part of your comment: “faith in a magical god who is floating in the sky” (which is a rather daft thing to say, by the way, befitting only of online infidel trolls misinformed of theology and proper philosophy of religion)”. If I say I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise be His Noodly Appendage), there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Sure, you’d think it’s insane, inane, totally made up. But hey, I can say the same about your god. (note the small “g”). All your noteworthy theology and “proper philosophy” amounts to just that. theology and philosophy. Your belief in a deity will never be substantiated in the real world.

4. Gay marriage is not a fundamental right? Who says “marriage” is a fundamental right anyway? The fundamental rights are as follows: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a corollary of this pursuit of happiness. If it so happens you would be happy with the opposite sex, then fine. Be happy. If your neighbor just so happens to be happy with the same sex, who are you to INFRINGE (note: refer to item number 2 about infringement of one religion over the rights of others) on them? If your only defense against same-sex marriage is because “the bible told you so”, or that it’s “unnatural”, that is a very weak argument. Citing an old book give just about as much weight as saying, “because my barber, who never graduated high school nor attended college has a PhD in nuclear physics”. It’s just lame.

5. “the feeling of marginalization that fueled this ridiculous protest didn’t come from nowhere. It came from believing that they are not heard, recognized, or liked. It came from knowing they will not be heard unless they stand in our way.” — again… NO. This isn’t just about getting one group’s way. This is about getting the government to get its shit together. When they say that they uphold the separation of church and state, it means that they should decide on issues and create laws independent of ANY religious belief. If a man and a woman can marry, what is stopping the government from letting same sex marriage? For as long as it does not cause REAL harm (i emphasized “real” because all you catholic hypocrites will definitely retaliate with your imaginary butt hurt replies)

Bottomline: it’s going to be a long, long time before the world gets rid of its last vestiges of superstition (i’m talking about all religions, duh!) but maybe we can at least start with upholding the people’s TRUE fundamental rights. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of each and everyone’s goddamn happiness!

In case anyone is still wondering if it isn’t obvious enough… yeah, I’m one of the few Filipino atheists.”

Pepe Republika: Hi Diego, thank you for engaging. I didn’t see your comment earlier, you could’ve replied up there. OK, here are my point-per-point counter-rebuttals:

1. Actually, the simplest form of the Doctrine of Separation is a sort of right to conscience. Originally, this is not the establishment clause but more of the free exercise clause. I agree with both clauses anyway. A review of related literature, both international and here in the Philippines, in the form of court precedents, will tell you how difficult it is to define religion. It may surprise you that atheism is considered a secular religion, Buddhism is also non-theistic and worldviews come in different shapes and sizes, so I do not think it is actually possible for the state to “disregard ALL religious beliefs”. You see, even you cannot escape moral language (inherently “religious”) in saying “government should uphold what is better for ALL people”. This is why I maintain that morality informs all laws and the only question is which morality are we guided by, so it becomes a democratic question but as I say with a caveat against infringement of basic rights.

2. I’m sorry if this irks you, but do not let emotions cloud sober evaluation. Based on my response in 1., when it becomes a democratic issue, the majority or those who represent them will vote according to conscience and that vote is guided by personal and group belief systems, that’s quite automatic in a democracy, that’s what I meant by “consideration”. You do realize how vastly different it is in other states with other majority religious/philosophical views, i.e. Theocratic Islamic or Atheistic Communist, and how blessed we are for having a scaffolding of the Christianity which affirms, and as I argue elsewhere, the only true basis of, human rights. Without a Christian foundation, I don’t think the state can and will “serve all people, provide the same rights to all…regardless of belief” at all, we see so many examples of this in history and around the world, even now.

The law must represent a balance of interests of all citizens (majority and minority) as much as it can, I agree with that but I do not agree that the state must provide special treatment for all minorities or anyone for that matter especially if such provision will infringe on other individual rights. But these are imprecise general statements and until we discuss this on a case-to-case basis and critically examine each proposed law, we may not reach an understanding here.

3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is exactly one of those grossly misinformed false analogies; It is really not comparable to God as properly understood theologically and philosophically, which you do not seem to get since you made a fallacious comparison. I expect better of Filipino atheists and “freethinkers”, but if it’s the FSM, then that’s exactly daft online infidel trollism. My belief in God is substantiated, for one, without God this “real world” cannot exist. God makes sense of the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and that the very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists, to name a few substantiations. Also, where are the nominal Pastafarians in the Philippines? What constitutes their ideas that warrant any religious protection? We can certainly grant their beliefs, to a reasonable extent, some consideration.

4. Uh, justice Kennedy in Obergefell v. Hodges said marriage is a fundamental right, to which, like you, I disagree. The “pursuit of [goddamn] happiness” is in the US Constitution, OK, I like that too. But let me remind you what CJ Roberts said in his dissent, and this applies to our Family Code too: “The marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases — no one.” So, in actual fact, even in the Philippines, it is common for couples, especially LGBT, to co-habit and we let them be, that is their right. Never mind the breakdown of marriages and families that the constitution swore to protect, let’s have couples (and throuples) choosing to infringe on children’s rights to a mother and father. US president Obama noted this back in 2008: “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” And so the government will have to pick up the pieces via taxpayer-funded social welfare and here we are wanting to institutionalize just that.

You seem to be reading too much Shakira Sison articles that say that the “only defense against same-sex marriage is because the bible told you so…”, not really. Read my comment again and you will see my reasoning. Read my other comments around here too where I discuss my position in detail, without even “citing an old book”, which, by the way, has been a guide to many and has survived rigorous examination across centuries.

5. I quoted Shakira, it’s in her concluding statements, read it again. You have to realize that the basic premise in my original comment isn’t about separation of church and state, but about how Shakira seems to always have a double-standard against religious beliefs.

Only a man and a woman can marry, that is philosophically the essential property of marriage. Now, as for civil marriage, this traditional definition is an anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, a biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and a social reality that children need both a mother and a father. The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so). Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point of marriage. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship. For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for civil marriage and the reason why the state is involved.

Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not ever need government sanction or license to do so. Marriage predates government and so I think all Filipinos regardless of religion and orientation are free to love as they please, and if they want to settle down “with someone they love” they can do so, no one is preventing them from co-habiting. But that cannot be considered a marriage. Not all relationships are equal to and can be recognized as marriage. As I’ve said no one is arguing that we should extend the rights of married couples to those living in stable, loving, non-sexual relationships. Sexual partnerships are not the only form of family life. For example, siblings can live together in a domestic relationship, an elderly parent might live with one of their children. Such domestic relationships can exemplify admirable qualities, can be socially beneficial, are surprisingly common. However, they are not marriages and should not be equivalent to marriage in law.

By the way, I am not Catholic, nor am I a hypocrite, also, I don’t think I have said anything like a butt hurt reply in any of my comments here on rappler. It may also surprise you that I am agreeable with civil unions. Finally, if the Filipino atheist commentary is like yours, frankly, I agree “it’s going to be a long, long time before the world gets rid of its last vestiges of superstition”, but don’t worry, I’m doing my best to help promote a better understanding of worldviews.

**********

*My Other Recent Rappler Comments Here:

Are You Just Blindly Following Irreligion? (Or Terrible Sloganeering)

LGBTs must Cease to Force PH Law to Recognize their Lifestyle as Basic Human Right

Tyranny of Marriage Equality Naivete

Big “Love”: Is Polygamy or Polyamory Around the Corner?

A Failure in Understanding and Absence of Reason: Same-Sex Marriage

The “Best” Arguments vs Same Sex “Marriage”?

Are You Just Blindly Following Irreligion? (Or Terrible Sloganeering)

I have no issue with celebrity opinion, that’s fine. I don’t necessarily consider them as ad vericundiam unless of course people take it to be factual and authoritative. It’s just an opinion after all.

Anyway, here is the rappler.com article:

Lea Salonga asks: ‘Are you just blindly following religion?’
“The critically acclaimed singer urges critics of the RH law and same-sex marriage not to let other people decide their stance on the controversial issues”

Here’s my take:

Pepe Republika: We thank Lea for sharing with us her thoughts on religion and whether we religious people “blindly follow” it. It is an almost timeless question to ask and so it is indeed timely as well. Our worldviews (religious or not) should indeed always be critically examined.

One note on religious views and public policy. Perhaps a better question is on morality. All worldviews (religious or not) have ideas about morality. Morality informs all laws. The question is only which morality (or immorality), or religious views (or irreligious) we are to adopt as a nation to inform the laws of the land and that is done through the democratic process. Now of course I agree that the question of fundamental rights isn’t something democratically determined, but there is no justification under atheism for this rather than to assume what religious beliefs, particularly and uniquely, Christianity, has always affirmed — that humans are of intrinsic worth, made in the image of God. I do not think any secular society can affirm this, think about Soviet Russia, Red China and Communist Vietnam; and most modern secular societies such as Western Europe especially Scandinavian countries had a very solid foundation of Christian (Lutheran tradition) ideals. So simply put, without a scaffolding of the Judeo-Christian worldview, the concept of rights, moreso, human rights, is simply arbitrary and ends up back in subjective discourse through the democratic discussion; we end up with political correctness, the last place we want our basic rights entrusted to. Whether we accept it or not, the bible provides people with ideas on various aspects of life and living in a community and so I don’t think it’s wrong to use it as basis to support arguments related to collective morality as a nation.

It is rather disingenuous to say religious people and organized religious groups, by exercising their right to free expression and the right to lobby or influence public policy, are “forcing their morality upon everyone” while those who are of a different persuasion aren’t forcing their irreligious views or morality (or lack thereof) upon everyone. This simply contradicts the essence of freedom and democracy upon which the ‘no establishment clause’ is built upon. The ‘separation clause’ was originally intended that no one, Catholic, Muslim or atheist, of a contrary belief is sacrificed on the altar of the state and it’s preferred religion or irreligion. In this sense, it is inaccurate to say “it has nothing to do with religion.” Having explained all that, we can say that religion, especially that which is critically appropriated, plays a very important role in society and cannot simply be done away with without peril to social order. Nevertheless, we do have non-religious legal reasoning against same-sex marriage, while more philosophical issues abound, I will resist discussing those.

Marriage, which is by definition, an institution between one man and one woman (complementary) with the purpose of becoming husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children; it is a unique relationship and deserves to be treated by the state in a unique way and afforded benefits in accordance to state objectives of providing the best possible basic environment for new citizens. Sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for marriage. It makes sense, then, that our laws should seek to honor, promote and defend exclusive, life-long partnerships between men and women. This is why marriage has been promoted as desirable and honorable relationship. Furthermore, while marriage is the best way to bring children into the world it also serves other deep purposes. It is the nucleus of a new family and a linchpin which connects two wider families together in the task of raising the next generation.

The state is not a sucker for romance. sexual relationships between men and women produce children; children naturally desire a loving relationship with their parents. This is a biological and anthropological truth. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship. For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for civil marriage and the reason why the state is involved. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not ever need government sanction or license to do so.

The argument for the traditional/natural definition is simple: “If there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships.” The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so. Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point. To those who say that a redefinition of marriage does not affect anyone at all (except those who are seeking to ‘join’ the institution), be not mislead. Chief Justice Roberts, during the April oral arguments for Obergefell said “you are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite sex relationship, and you want to introduce to it a same-sex relationship.”

So does civil marriage, for the purposes of the state, infringe on any fundamental human right? That is the legal question Obergefell tried but miserably failed to answer and it has even turned the US constitution on its head doing so. Apparently, it does not. Treating something essentially unique as marriage in a unique way is not discrimination. Therefore, we are not, in effect, denying the same rights to LGBTs when we treat a unique institution such as marriage in a unique way for the purposes of the family and state. Marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anyway. They have a disparate impact on gays, certainly, but that is not the court’s test. Marriage laws do not discriminate based on orientation is that they simply do not require checking someone’s orientation at all in determining whether that person will receive the benefits of civil marriage. Thus, under man–woman marriage laws, a gay man may marry a lesbian woman, while two heterosexual men cannot receive a marriage certificate from the state.

“Marriage equality” as I maintain elsewhere is another misleading, if not outright deceptive slogan, people seem to “blindly follow” this too, as it is “unacceptable reasoning” to me. Do we really think that one-man-and-one-woman relationships are equal with one-man-one-man, two-men-one-woman, three-sisters, ten-brothers, one-man-and-a-harem? With respect to the state purpose of civil marriage where new citizens are natural fruits, and in view of a strong and orderly society, there is no comparison here. The most robust studies consistently show that children do best when a mom and dad are present. Why should we as a society wish otherwise. Before US president Obama, so-called “evolved” on this issue, back in 2008 he said “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

I have no issues with the RH law generally, but my meat with it is that why should I pay my tax monies for others’ contraceptives, which to me is a personal responsibility. Health is a personal responsibility. The solution to poverty is jobs and lower taxes so people can afford to buy their own ‘basic’ necessities and become empowered to take care of themselves. We, “critics of the RH law and same-sex marriage” already “critically examine our reasons for opposing the controversial issues”, its supporters might want to take your advice: To me those who tout “marriage equality” and still painting religious views as uninformed have a lot to gain by critically examining their position. I believe, just as much as Lea does that we also did and continue to “do the right thing” by not supporting these ideas; the title question applies both ways, as much as it is critical to ask it as it is, it is also appropriate to question: “Are you just blindly following your irreligious beliefs?”

**********

UPDATE: We have a brave (a little foolish that I LOL) response:

jsolilapsi: “Citations on those robust studies concluding that children do best when raised by a mom and a dad? I will start this argument with a scientific reference. Your comment was long. But the longest philosophical comment can be utterly disproved by a single scientific citation. Your reasons sound good, well thought actually. But check this recent compilation of scientific studies on the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples.”

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

Pepe Republika: 

Thank you, jsolilapsi! I will find time to read and critique these studies you cited, some already look familiar. Now, while I do not agree with the assertion “…philosophical comment can be utterly disproved by a single scientific citation” (no, seriously, this is nutty, scientific research obviously depend on philosophy to make sense of findings), here’s few to start with:

(1) Strohm, Charles Q., “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage.” 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than cohabiting heterosexual couples. This indicates the instability of same-sex family environments which is bad for children

(2) Loren Marks claims that on previous studies, “Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 “American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting” compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.” Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the “no differences” paradigm, rests.

(3) Gunnar Andersson’s et al “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.” – 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages, such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Sociologists Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. Academy, acknowledge that “preliminary data hint that their [gay/lesbian] relationships may prove less durable.”

(4) Daniel Potter of American Institutes for Research has “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement”. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these baseline differences can probably be attributed in part to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together.

(5) Douglas W. Allen, Catherine Pakaluk, Joseph Price, “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld” reexamines Rosenfeld’s (2010) study on the association between child outcomes and same-sex family structure. Using the same data set, we replicate and generalize Rosenfeld’s findings and show that the implications of his study are different when using either alternative comparison groups or alternative sample restrictions. Compared with traditional married households, we find that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 % less likely to make normal progress through school.

(6) D. Paul Sullins’ The Unexpected Harm of Same-sex Marriage: A Critical Appraisal, Replication and Re-analysis of Wainright and Patterson’s Studies of Adolescents with Same-sex Parents – The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

(7) Of Course, the famed, Mark Regnerus’s study. The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.

Studies even published here on rappler.com, just last June in the article by Maria Isabel Garcia “If mother knows best, what does father know?” ”. Some studies have concluded that

(8) fathers who are actively involved in the raising of their children result in better verbal skills, intellectual functioning and academic achievement and

(9) It is always said that daughters have a special relationship with their fathers. Studies have shown that dads do play a role in their girls’ self esteem…”

There are more, just do a good search and examine. Parenting studies are mostly secondary to me. The main point would be that there are differences between men and women and that they are complementary. This is a biological, anthropological and sociological fact.

A commonsense reason why heterosexual parents are the gold standard and ideal environment to rear new citizens is because a mother and a father being biologically complementary bring to the table unique sets of perspectives, ways of thinking, physical capabilities etc., simply by the biological/anthropological nature of their different gender; for example, I usually refer to breastfeeding as having more than just physical benefits to the baby. Moreover, I argued for biological parenthood that further reinforces this idea, children in homes where both biological parents are present tend to do better than adoptive homes for many reasons such as natural connection, genealogical connection, psychological and emotional effects of genetic connections. You see all this point to the truth that  mothers and fathers are irreplaceable in a child’s life. That’s why I ask everyone to consider this: “Do we really think that one-man-and-one-woman relationships are equal with one-man-one-man, two-men-one-woman, three-sisters, ten-brothers, one-man-and-a-harem?” clearly, the answer is “no”. I think we always have to be clear what we mean when we say “marriage” that it is, as the state recognizes for its purposes, a life-long union of one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. The state recognizes that more than just a unique biological union that produces new citizens, it is best environment in which these new citizens are nurtured, and the people, through the state, do not and should not want anything less.

**********

I do have preliminary responses to the studies cited which I intend to post here as well, I am just compiling them. In any case, here are some good criteria for most social science research papers. People tend to highlight the findings and make a lot out of it and yet when you look in detail even just a bit, concerns come to the surface. I used this criteria when the ACHESS came out:

(1) Has The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) been peer-reviewed already? [Antonio, you know my stand on the Politics of Science, it could get peer-review sooner or later, with less scrutiny than Regnerus perhaps]

(2) Effect sizes, should also be reported, along with means and standard deviations, from which effect sizes can be calculated. (APA policy)

(3) Same-sex definitions: Since sexual attraction and sexual behavior can differ, without more information, how many of the “same-sex attracted” (especially bisexual) parents might have been engaging in heterosexual sexual behavior or partnering?

(4) In Dr Crouch’s article in BMC Health, it is stated that they hoped to study up to 750 children from 400 families, but it appears they only obtained responses from 500 children from 315 families, seeming to suggest that their project objectives were not achieved. Does that suggest some impact of refusal rates or non-response? Some impact of selection effects?

(5) Age of the children: If some children were under the age of 10, as implied in the interim report, it is unlikely that they reported on their own health outcomes, but rather more likely that parental reports were used.

(6) Socio-economic differences: Any indication? If you wish to determine the influence of parental sexual orientation per se on child outcomes, you need to control for family differences in parental education, household income, and per capita household income.

(7) the authors acknowledge that some of their measures have featured subpar reliabilities (eg, below 0.70) and others have yet to be validated in Australian samples.

(8) The possible omission of some important child health-related outcomes (eg, ability to delay gratification, the family history of each child in terms of traumatic caregiver transitions, engagement in early sexual activity, use of illegal substances, experience of child sexual abuse, academic performance)

(9) How many statistical tests were performed to obtain the results reported as significant? http://www.biome­dcentral.com/1471-24­58/12/646 So there, if the points are not answered sufficiently, I would hold such studies in suspect as I have other studies that have been marked with the politics of science especially in this very hot-button issue, extra care and critical thinking should be exercised.

***********

 UPDATE: Here’s another article in which Lea reacts to CBCP news:

Lea Salonga: Twisting my words on same-sex marriage is ‘ungodlike’
The acclaimed Broadway actress says her remarks on same-sex marriage were ‘twisted’ and misinterpreted in a CBCP News report

here’s the CBCP report: Netizens react to Broadway star’s ‘cafeteria Christianity’

And here are the responses, including mine:

Ryan Capitulo: Rappler is now quoting my facebook post! Lea Salonga, I transcribed your interview myself so as not to “twist your words”. But the issue of “gay unions” is indeed divisive.

An excerpt from this Rappler article: She added, “When I said “all-encompassing” I meant that everyone is deserving of God’s love, regardless of their sin. That is the godly way. An elevated love that we as humans need to learn.”

You are right, Lea! All of us sinners deserve GOD’s love regardless of the gravity of our sins. And yes, you are right in saying that JESUS embraced the sinners and the marginalized.

Remember the adulteress in JESUS’ time? “And JESUS, raising HIMSELF, said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned thee?’ She said, ‘No one LORD.’ Then JESUS said, ‘Neither will I condemn thee. Go thy way, and from now on sin no more.'” (John 8:10-11). During JESUS’ time, sinners who encounter HIM experience true and lasting conversion. They heed HIS command to “sin no more.”

I am one with JESUS in embracing, loving and NOT condemning sinners. I am one with JESUS in embracing, loving and NOT condemning LGBTs. In fact, I have many LGBT friends who are close to my heart. But, in opposing “gay unions”, I am one with JESUS in saying “Go thy way, and from now on sin no more.” #LivingOutMyCatholicFaith

Rob Locke: You compared the LBGT community to pedophiles and serial killers. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

Daves: I probably forgot my bible lessons, but…did Jesus mention anything against gays? Note I said Jesus rather than God in the Old Testament where incest and slavery were (oddly?) allowed for some reason.

Pepe Republika: Hi Ryan. Indeed it is already divisive and I think that is ok, we all have differing political opinions stemming from our deeply held beliefs. That is what’s wonderful about a democracy with good freedoms. I thank you doc, and Lea as well, for exercising these rights.. For us Christians, our God and Savior Jesus Christ affirmed in Matt 19 the Father’s idea of sexuality in Gen 1:27 and the marriage relationship in Gen 2:24, which is further explained by the apostle Paul in Romans and the rest of the New Testament, etc. The truth is, a lot of people are misinformed about the bible (especially non-Christians) yet they keep telling us like they know better.

Christine Mendez: In your version of society, Mr. Capitulo, is there any place for people of different beliefs or different orientation? what do you suggest gay, lesbian, bi and transgender people should do? What do you think is the biblical solution for this? If I am gay, what do you think I should do? If I have gay friends and family, how do you think I should treat them? Do people belonging to the LGBT community not deserving of a family? Do they not deserve a future, settling down with someone they love or shall they only settle down with someone of opposite sex even if they can’t wholly share their love with them? Is what they feel for another person with the same sex as them not love? Is it only considered love if you can have traditional sexual intercourse with someone? (because this is the part where filipinos are so sensitive with) What if a person who happens to be gay has different faith, what if he is buddhist and is a filipino. Is there no place in the philippine society for him?

we are not talking about the heavenly society believers will go to after they die. we are talking about our society here on earth where everyone, sinners and saints alike live. We are talking about rights of every individual as long as it doesn’t stomp over another individual’s right. (And this is where your comparison with pedophiles have so much problem with. You see, when pedophiles attack children, they are stealing the right of the children to be safe and to be free. This is where pedophiles marrying a kid who still hasn’t matured enough to choose what is right and wrong and still cant protect him/herself differ from two adult gay couple choosing to marry each other)

We know that our values doesn’t always co-inside with everyone else’s. My grandmother thinks that poeple who go to disco clubs are sinners and will go to hell, shall we close all clubs and bars and condemn all club goers because my grandmother’s version of christianity thinks they are all sinners. Do you know that in a different religion, you are even considered a sinner for following what they think is a false god. So you see the problem when we let our own understanding of our religion (which should be personal) hinder how we understand another person’s right and equality in our society? So you see the significance of the commandment “love your neighbour as you love yourself” in living in a world with different faiths, values, different people, good and bad. Accept your neighbours as how you would want to be accepted (all of you, including your faith and the religion you follow, as long as you don’t stomp over another person’s right). This is not heaven, this is earth.

Pepe Republika: Hi Christine, with your indulgence, I intervene here. Looks like Mr. Capitulo is no longer responding to all our comments below. We may have different views on homosexuality and whether or not we think it is, and to what extent it is, sin (depending on our different understanding of what Christian doctrine says), although we have the same view disagreeing with same-sex marriage and that’s how I want to address your concerns.

Firstly, there is “place for people of different beliefs or different orientation” for both me and Mr. Capitulo. For the most part, Christians have never been hostile to other beliefs and Christianity actually provides much basis for our modern ideas of fundamental rights, not in “the heavenly society believers will go to after they die” but yes, “our society here on earth”.

You spoke so much about love but that is not what civil marriage is about, do you really think the state is interested in romantic relationships? No. The state is interested in the fruits of that union – children or new citizens. As I have said elsewhere, sexual relationships between men and women produce children; children naturally desire a loving relationship with their parents. This is a biological and anthropological truth. If there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships. The traditional view of marriage recognizes basic facts: Sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. Whether we like it or not, the correlation of sex and having children is high (There is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that two men or three women cannot naturally do so). Therefore, society, by the state, encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation – a union which can create new life and support new families. That’s the point of marriage. It would be better, by far, if every family was founded by a man and woman committed in a caring, exclusive, lifelong relationship. For this reason, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for civil marriage and the reason why the state is involved. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not ever need government sanction or license to do so. Marriage predates government and so I think all Filipinos regardless of religion and orientation are free to love as they please, and if they want to settle down “with someone they love” they can do so, no one is preventing them from co-habiting. But that cannot be considered a marriage. Not all relationships are equal to and can be recognized as marriage. No one is arguing that we should extend the rights of married couples to those living in stable, loving, non-sexual relationships. Sexual partnerships are not the only form of family life. For example, siblings can live together in a domestic relationship; an elderly parent might live with one of their children. Such domestic relationships can exemplify admirable qualities, can be socially beneficial, are surprisingly common. However, they are not marriages and should not be equivalent to marriage in law. You see, they do not need to be “equalized” simply because they aren’t to begin with; as Aristotle said, “The worst form of inequality/injustice is to try to make unequal things equal.”

You argue from consent and I agree that it cannot include pedophiles (who may also say, by the way, they are only “born this way”). But, consent also allows for polygamy/polyamory/adulterous and incestuous relationships that is as long as everyone in these types of non-traditional relationships love and take care of each other. In your own words consider this: “If I am polyamorous/adulterous/incestuous, what do you think I should do? If I have polyamorous/adulterous/incestuous friends and family, how do you think I should treat them? Do people belonging to the polyamorous/adulterous/incestuous community not deserving of a family? Do they not deserve a future, settling down with someone (or someMORE) they love or shall they only settle down with someONE of opposite sex/non-related even if they can’t wholly share their love with them?” and so on and so forth…

You said “we are talking about rights of every individual as long as it doesn’t stomp over another individual’s right” what then of the rights of children? Aren’t they stomped? Don’t they deserve their own mother and father? By allowing same sex marriage, we are in effect instituting fatherless or motherless children. Aren’t we, in effect, “stealing the right of the children” to their biological mother and father? Children “who still hasn’t matured enough to choose” for themselves “and still can’t protect him/herself” from two men or two women, in their desire to have children, which they 100% guaranteed naturally can never have, buy it, or engage in a transaction like commodity from the test tube babies marketplace?

Finally, “our values doesn’t always coincide with everyone else’s”, exactly why we are debating it. We all have different values and that translates to different ideas on what a good society looks like. In a democracy, great consideration for the values of the majority of the population. I don’t think it is a problem at all “when we let our own understanding of our religion [/morality/values]” because in fact that’s what we all are doing, you included and all you said makes it seem to me that your irreligion [your ideas/morality/values] (which should be personal [according to you, when in fact it isn’t]) “hinders how we understand another person’s rights [children]” and your ideas about “equality in our society”, just like Lea’s, is also not very much examined. While we all “see the significance of the [Christian] commandment “love your neighbor as you love yourself” living in a world with different faiths, values, different people, good and bad”, we are also a nation of laws and according to our values, while we love bad people, we should prevent them from doing things that are harmful to society in general. We “accept your neighbors as how we would want to be accepted”, you talk so much about rights, but I am not sure if you really understand that. Yes, “this is not heaven, this is earth”, but we do our best while we’re here.

Other Replies:

M. Del Rosario: What else is new? Did we really expect the religious sector to be truthful and honest even in such trivial matters as quoting someone else? So many “religious” people in this country and yet we are amongst the most corrupt. That says a lot about the hypocrisy of it all. Before these religious zealots start criticizing others, maybe they should look at themselves first because I am sure most of the corrupt people in this country will profess that they are “Christian” and I am almost as sure that those critics have at least once in their lives bribed an official…even if it’s just 100 pesos to a traffic enforcer. May pagmumukha pa ba tayong magkunwari na matitino ang Pilipino? Gimme a break. Tell me that the moment it is safe to actually leave your car unlocked or your bag unattended.

Amelia Samonte: you said it all…… well said…! thanks Mr. M. Del Rosario…. When will be the Day…!:)

Pepe Republika: If these tell us anything at all, Manolo, it is that we failed to live out the beliefs we profess. Certainly that does not mean these beliefs aren’t true. It is also very tempting to generalize and I think it’s somehow warranted in our case and I agree that’s sad. However, there are those who genuinely try and live out consistently and that should give us hope, let’s strive to be in that group. As a religious person, I constantly examine myself first, and we should all do, but that should not stop us from expressing our political opposition to ideas we deem immoral and deleterious for our vision of an orderly society, just as much as those who have contrary views to ours, such as Lea, that have their own set of beliefs, morals (that they also fail to adhere to), and ideas of an orderly society. Let’s continue to freely discuss, express, advocate and vote for our ideas.

Ramon Zamora: Religion is the cause of hatred in the World. You don’t need Religion. Just be good to others & pray whomever you think is your savior.

Pepe Republika: Hi Ramon! anything to support these claims? Thanks.

Daves: A cause, maybe, rather than the cause.

Jesus Advincula: It’s human nature that when we are faced with something that does not conform with what we like and and what is difficult for us to follow, we tend to do what is easy for us and pleasing to our flesh. Then we start to bend all things else to conform to the flesh or our weakness. This is the point where a true christian is tested. I just hope that no one should call himself christian if he or she does not follow the bible in its true essence and meaning. May God forgive us for using his name “Christ”ian to describe ourselve when we fail to follow his words.

Servus Dei: Never support anyone who is blinded by this world that is ruled by the evil one. She quoted about the 2nd greatest commandment of Jesus Christ which is ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ accusing Christians are making exceptions to that on gays, lesbians, and trans for not allowing gay marriage. I say this to her, if you love your neighbour, you will not allow that person to tolerate sin, because sin will lead anyone of us to hell. All of us will die and all of us will face God at the end of our life. The Lord Jesus Christ coming back soon and we are the generation that will witness this greatest event that is foretold in the Holy Bible. Being gay or lesbian is a mortal sin. If God created you a man then be a man, if God created you a woman then be a woman, if you act the opposite way, then you are disobeying the will of God. It means you are following the will of your heart and your mind and not the will of God. Another thing, abortion is a mortal sin because you are disobeying the 7th commandment of God “You shall not kill”. Abortion is killing your own baby inside your womb. Remember what God said “Go and multiply”. What if the whole world turned into gays and lesbians, or all mothers abort their children? Does the people of the world obey the will God? Do you think there will be another generation to come? Gay Marriage and abortion comes from the evil one, Satanic, they want to stop the world’s population by allowing gay marriage, abortion, family planning, wars, spreading out deceases, radiation, etc. Satan hates humanity, it’s not true that the world is over populated.

Daves: And some people did evil stuff while invoking God’s name. So, who’s the evil one?

Pepe Republika: Hi Servus! Yeah, by “accusing Christians are making exceptions to that on gays, lesbians, and trans for not allowing gay marriage” Lea twisted others’ words/ideas there, right? Also, when she said “to be an advocate for the LGBT is to stand up for humanity”, she has just painted those who oppose same-sex marriage as not standing up for humanity. And “to use the Bible to justify bigotry and hate is wrong” , of course it is but she is being presumptuous as well in characterizing those who oppose her same-sex marriage advocacy who use the bible, are simply bigots and haters. Although I have reservations on the rest of your ideas, your initial comments sparked my thoughts here.

Benny Abante: It’s true! We ought to love our neighbors whoever they might be. It’s true the Lord did not make any condition on who to love. He even said to love your enemies. But it doesn’t mean that because I should love my neighbor that I agree with his lifestyle and that everything he does is right. Just like I love my son very much yet when he does wrong I do not tell him “go ahead just do it and destroy yourself anyway I love you.” When the Lord says, “I love you,” He meant you come to me just as you are and trust me because I’m the only one who can change your life. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.” 2 Cor.5:17.

Rollie Reyes: I agree. We should love all persons – everyone as image bearers of God.
But what does it mean when we love persons? Does it mean blindly approving of anyone’s actions? Even if sexual activity between two males is wrecking havoc on the rising statistics of HIV-AIDS in our country, despite the promotion of condoms and “safe sex”? Does it mean redefining an inviolable social institution like marriage to reduce it into a right to accommodate the caprices of anyone who wishes to get married? Even if reducing it into a right opens marriage to be available to anyone who wants it?

Today, marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of propagating the human race (since children naturally comes with the union of husband and wife). If you open it to homosexuals, what would stop marriage to be available to pedophiles? Both camps would argue on the same basis of “love” as the only criterion for marriage. What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? Let us review:

2357 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,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 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.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.

2359 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.

Lea Salonga and the Catholic Church says the same thing: Homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”. But what Lea misses out is the teaching on CHASTITY. This teaching is FOR ALL – whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. This teaching saves us from all harm, from the objectification of persons, from the treatment of sex merely as a recreational activity rather than a sacred communion of man and woman, from the health hazards of STDs and HIV-AIDS. “This country is not yet ready” – you say. Are we ready to throw away our values and morals and embrace whatever evil that the world proposes? We, faithful Catholics and Christians, will never be ready for this.We would continue to fight and if needed, die, for our faith.”

Daves: Do you actually equate being gay with being evil? Uh, is that worth dying for? O_O

Jeanne Escriva: You mean, the “Facebook trend” on your page, right? Because in other Facebook threads about same-sex relations, majority of netizens are still strongly against.

Daves: Indeed? How about the “other Facebook threads” that (might) show otherwise?

Julie Mae G: “The truth is it is more often the case that people insert their values into their scriptures…The point is that without interpretation scripture is just words on a page, it requires somebody to read it, to encounter it for it to have any kind of meaning, and obviously in that transaction you are bringing yourself, your views, your politics, your social ideas into the text. How you read scripture has everything to do with who you are. God did not make you a bigot, you’re just a bigot.” ~ Reza Aslan

The power of any scripture (be it the Bible, Quran, Torah, or what have you, is on its malleability. You can read it in any way you want to, then insert your own philosophy, politics, or points of view.

Pepe Republika: Not really Julie Mae, that’s self-defeating. I can simply read anything into what you are saying right now to tell you it does not mean what you wanted it to mean, but what it means to me which can be anything I want it to mean because these are “just words on a [web]page”. See, it self-destructs, and if it applies to your words why doesn’t it apply to scriptures? Granted, I agree with your quote of prof Aslan when he said: “How you read scripture has everything to do with who you are. God did not make you a bigot, you’re just a bigot” but only to a certain extent, because for example, if people are killing people or instituting slavery, “in the name of their religion”, what is the difference between Islam and Christianity for example, based on the Qur’an and the Bible? Then, it becomes obvious that for professing Christians, they are not in keeping with the teachings and the person of Jesus Christ and the totality of biblical Christian doctrine. These aren’t mere words, they have objective meaning and purpose of the author just like any other communication.

The real power of the Truth revealed in the Bible is that if you are a bigot or whatever terrible person you are, you ought to be progressively being transformed for the better, just like slave-trader John Newton who wrote the song Amazing Grace. No excuses. Given, of course, that we are all in the process of that transformation we should be gracious enough to give our neighbors some latitude.