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.

Censorship of Depicting Homosexual Relationship in Philippine Television

Last episode of Glee features the kiss of Blaine and Kurt. Months ago, Dave kissed Kurt in the locker room. Of course, those who watched it in the internet, enjoyed seeing the lovable Kurt being kissed by guys. The Klaine kiss was like the dream of every gay guys out there and I totally commend the writer's of Glee for making such thing happen on Kurt. He deserves it. However, what the audience doesn't deserve is the censorship that MTRCB posed on the "Klaine" kiss, or homosexual kiss in general.

Few hours ago, I saw the Philippine airing of Original Songs, and I was disturbed by the fact that the kiss was not shown. It was like I was stolen a few moments of bliss. I feel disrespected and I started to wonder what is MTRCB's stand when it comes to depiction of homosexuality in Philippine television.

Of course we see a lot of homosexual characters in the television but most of them are like these flamboyantly loud and funny gays. No depth, no seriousness within the character itself. Maybe the writers do not think that a "sensible" gay character would become a hit or maybe they are just too afraid of depicting one, specifically, a deep emotional connection between homosexual characters. I just wonder.

Searching the internet, I stumbled upon these statements by MTRCB. This happened in 2004 and was sent to the TV programs The Buzz and S-Files. I find these statements absolutely disgusting. They say:

" lesbian and homosexual relationships are an abnormality to human nature... To show such kind of abnormality/aberration on primetime TV programs gives the impression that the network is encouraging homosexual relationships" (bold mine)

"To allow lesbians or homosexuals to kiss each on television during primetime is tantamount to saying to children who watch your programs that to be lesbian or homosexual is all right"

These statements of the then MTRCB Chairwoman Consolita Laguardia are totally outrageous and absolutely disgusting. She was as if implying that homosexuals do not have the right to fall in love, or generally speaking, have a deeper emotional attachment to another person. In this world where the persecution to homosexuals seem less severe, this type of statements  unacceptable and totally disrespectful not only towards homosexuals but also towards the person's right to freely express himself. Yes, I know for a fact that these statements were uttered years ago and Laguardia already apologized; but, this "rule' seems to be standing strong because of the censorship on these type of scenes.

So I appeal to the current MTRCB Chairwomen Mary Grace Llamanzares to review their rules with regards to depicting homosexual relationships in the Philippine television. Times are already changed and awareness comes with respect. We are glad that homosexuals receive appreciation in the society but we are also striving for much wider scope of equality. Freedom of expression is a right that must be expressed by each and every one of us. Homosexuals just need to have the society's level of respect to them to be raised in a level where homosexuality is not classified as a disease or an 'abnormality to human nature'

The Oxymoron of the Church's Stand on Homosexuality

Earlier this week, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) announced the publication of the book Homosexuality and the Catholic Church by Fr. John Harvey. Archbishop Oscar Cruz said that the entire catholic community could be benefited from the contents of this book with regards to the nature of same-sex attraction. The book reveals the Church's position on homosexuality and the basic catechism with regards to this phenomenon.

In an article posted in the CBCP website, Archbishops Paciano Ancieto and Oscar Cruz reveals the gist of the book. In the said article, the CBCP urges the the homosexuals to "come out in the open" because "there is nothing to be ashamed of". Further, the CBCP also defended same-sex attraction, saying that it does not merit condemnation at once because homosexuality is a natural disposition. Fair enough, right? But this seemingly welcoming remarks of the Church is actually superficial.

In the same article, Bishop Oscar Cruz said:

"Don't condemn those who had a different sexual orientation for one thing, they did not chose it. Second, it is possible they could redeem themselves. Third, a good number of them are just behaving that way but they are not acting on their sexual orientation"

Let us dissect this statement:

1.  The first sentence is commendable. It is true (although my opinion on this would be biased) that one cannot condemn anyone who is sexually deviant. Condemning homosexuals are as disgusting as racism. The high rate of gay teen suicides in the  past couple of months is alarming enough and the primary root of this sad events is bullying. The neanderthal comparison of the homosexual phenomenon to a certain kind of viral disease adds up to the burden of a "closeted" homosexual trying to figure our his identity. I believe though that being homosexual is a choice- a choice to enjoy the freedom of being one's self- and it is this choice that makes the person comfortable with.
2. The second sentence, however, is clearly dangerous because it implies that homosexuals are originally destined to be thrown in the fiery seas of hell. The placement of the word "redeem" suggests that gays and lesbians already committed a sin being themselves. Clearly, this sentence is contradictory to His Eminence's  previous statement. With this two sentences combine, it is like saying "Do not condemn them because they are already condemned." 
3. The last sentence of this statement further reveals the true stand of the CBCP on homosexuality. Behaving and acting are to terms with clearly different meaning, but aren't these terms in a antecedent-consequent relationship with each other. While the CBCP says the there is nothing wrong on being gay (and they also encourages the "coming-out"), the bishops instruct homosexual to not act on their being. Again, we go back to the choice of being one's self. The choice of being gay entails the assumption that after the choosing being homosexual, the freedom to act as one follows. The CBCP says that a man can be attracted to another man is a "natural sexual disposition" and does not merit any persecution from the populace. However, they also imply that a man falling in love with another man merits a commission of a sin. These arguments are hilariously preposterous! For more, while the CBCP acknowledges homosexuality as a "natural disposition", it denies the existence of "third sex". WHAT?!

Homosexuality is not a sin, it is a form of self-expression, of being one's self. The "welcoming" remarks of the CBCP towards us homosexuals are good, but I say, "No Thanks!". These affirming-but-actually-denying statements are disgusting. It doesn't do anything good to the LGBT community. The CBCP condemns us further, by the mere superficial acceptance. These statements are just compounding the persecution homosexuals undergo in their everyday lives. As per being one, I have just learned to ignore the insults and the laughs being thrown at me as I am being judged with my choice of clothes and my sexual preference. Reading these statements are actually more insulting than the petty mockery that ordinary people throws on homosexuals. This is the reason why day after day, people our being discouraged on going to the Church. In reply to these statements, let me say to the CBCP that there are worse thing rather than losing "morality" for being gay. For example, losing religion. 

Oscar's Best Picture Nominee: The Kids are All Right
Starring: Annette Benning, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo
Directed by: Lisa Cholodenko
Produced by: Jeff Levy-Hinte, Gary Gilbert, Jordon Horowitz, Celine Rattray


Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 94%

Synopsis: Nic and Jules has the perfect family: their daughter is going to college with academic honors on her back, finances are strong, and they are just plain happy-- but the thing is, Nic and Jules are a lesbian couple. Given there unconventional family structure, Nic struggles to keep her family together as their sperm donor enters the scene and tries to win the favors of her wife and her children.

In these times when the society's dealing with homosexuals are relatively tolerable compared to previous era, everything is not just about a question of whether one is straight or gay, it is also a question of love (I have taken this quote from the French Film Juste une question d'amour). Love, as it is right now, is about who one is and how she sees herself from within. Although the present society prefers heterosexual relationship, it is not that unusual for us seeing a girl and a girl kissing or two men walking hand in hand.

A homosexual relationship is not easy to maintain-- I for one is a witness to this situation. For one thing, you are judged to be immoral and deviant and so many embarrassing (and most often than not, insulting) names. For us homosexuals, we are still persecuted at a certain extent. It is hard to tell the world that you love another guy, much more to show the world how you love the guy. Another thing in homosexual relationship is about insecurities- jealousy doubles its own chance. The Kids are All Right  explores the insecurity a homosexual (for this case, a lesbian) deals with her insecurities while maintaining the family she built for the last 18 years of her life.

Conflict started when Nic (Annette Benning) and Jules's (Julianne Moore) children met the guy who artificially inseminated the lesbian couple. Paul (Mark Ruffalo) hangs out with the two children too much and become attached to one another, especially Laser who just found a father figure from Paul. Things became worse when Jules started sleeping with Paul. Annette Benning's attack on the keen observer physician lesbian character flows directly from the characters motivation. Every time you see her in the screen, you can always feel the aura of insecurity she feels when Paul is around. Two thumbs up for the character.

Watching it, it is hard to identify at first whether Nic is too insecure or Paul is meddling with the family affairs too much. In Nic's point of view, Paul is a virus invading her family. On the other hand, Paul grasps the chance to change his life by connecting with his biological children. The competition between the two is subtly intense because they are two person from the opposite poles: Nic is firm with the rules for her children, Paul is loose; Nic is critical towards  Jules while Paul appreciates Jules' talent. Nic's character is troubled enough- he is loud, annoying and hypercritical in every sense- but we are gladly walkthroughed by the script towards her inner frailty when it comes to keeping her family as close as possible. Towards the end Nic won my heart and sympathy as Paul proved himself in the wrong side of the track.

This movie tackles the idea of traditional family values despite the unconventional family setting that Nic and Jules have. Trust is of the essence, as in any other kind of relationship, and it takes time and effort to make a marriage work. The good thing about this movie is that its warm atmosphere all through out somewhat resembles the warm atmosphere that a family should have: where everybody is free to think, to love and to be oneself.



Other Oscar's Nomination
Best Actress- Annette Benning
Best Supporting Actor: Mark Ruffalo
Best Original Screenplay: Lisa Cholodenko. Stuart Blumberg