“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The paper, cited by more than 100 other scholarly papers, has been withdrawn from Social Science and Medicine because its results could not be replicated.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“This article has been retracted at the request of the authors and the Editors-in-Chief.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who live in areas where people were highly prejudiced against them had a significantly shorter life expectancy has been retracted.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″
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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?”

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/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.

**********

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“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.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/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)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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:

‘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’
‘I’m not condemning anyone, but I’m just telling the truth,’ Pacquiao says in an Instagram post
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.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment