A Letter Regarding Homosexuality

I owe this to the writer of the comment which was posted last week on my entry on Cristy Fermin. This just came to my attention last night because this wonderful comment was diverted to the spam folder. Too bad, it was posted as anonymous, I can't cite her for this. But to whoever you are, I would like to thank you for a wonderful comment.

To give you some background on why this specific comment was posted, my entry on March 31 involves the homophobic comment of Cristy Fermin against Aiza Seguerra. The commentary part of the post were become a discussion area on morality and homosexuality. And then, some people started to quote from the Bible, so in retaliation the anonymous person posted this letter:

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

I love the wit in the post. I do hope that the Filipino society would open their minds. In these changing times, blinded faith is totally neanderthal.

Cristy Fermin's Uncalled Tirade to Aiza Seguerra

The Willie Revillame Alleged Child Abuse situation clearly has divided the entire nation as the issues now becomes a national issue. Why it is a national issue is based on the primary principle that Children Welfare and Human Rights are all together a national interest. I can't help it but to feel sad on how some people could not see the subtleness of the vicious act of exploitation on that moment and rather than stopping it, people ended up looking at a gyrating minor as an entertainment. With the swiftness of words as it travels through the seemingly frictionless social networks had this issue branched out and the situation grows sadder as some people (well, they are of WR's side) resort to uncalled ad hominems to retaliate. What should have been a discourse discussed purely by minds is being turned to mudslingings by those who keeps standing their ground for their "loyalty" to WR.

I am talking about Cristy Fermin and her seriously uncalled comment on her radio show. In her defense to Willie Revillame, Fermin said that a "singer" (yes she didn't directly named who) has no right to talk about morality because "the singer" lives an immoral life. I know I would be filling in the blanks here but the context of the statement clearly points out to Aiza Seguerra. So, what does Cristy Fermin try to insinuate in this statement? Obviously she is referring to Aiza Seguerra's sexuality and the message that came to me on that instant Fermin said that statement was that she equalizes being homosexual to immorality.

This is totally uncalled for. Clearly, for a lack of better argument, Fermin just carelessly, again, threw mud in the wrong direction. First and foremost, it is out of the topic talking about immorality and homosexuality. Secondly, it is disgusting that she equated gay as immoral.

This has disturbed me and it hurts for me to hear this kind of statements. As a proud homosexual, the struggle to find my sexuality and identity is hard enough, not to mention the name callings I am getting for being gay. In this era of modernization and freedom of expression, anti-gay statements are totally a no-no as they are a form of discrimination. I know that Fermin knows this but she seems off the line as she only saying this to desperately cover Revillame's ass. She can definitely defend Willie to all of her liking but it is not right for her to comment on things that is not a part of the issue at discourse. We are supposed to be talking about the existence of "child abuse" on that night of March 12 when Jan Jan gyrated in the national television.

There are a lot of discourse going on everywhere. Call it a circus, but I know for a fact that this issue will end at a point where we are all learned a lesson. For this case, the circumstances teaches us that Child Abuse is not limited to physically harming a child but the definitions extends to cases where in the "abuse" and "exploitations" are so sublime that we can easily overlook on to this. If we are going to discuss things and provide evidences to prove our argument, let's maintain the discourse in an intelligent level and not to resort--ever-- to name callings and ad hominems. And as for Fermin, I think it must be proper for her to apologize to Aiza Seguerra and to the LGBT community for what she has said.