Aug 21 2006
Homosexuals vs. Machos
Basta ako, hindi ko makakalimutan ang
sagot ng isang bakla sa isang byuti pageant sa Eat Bulaga noon. sa
Final round, ang tanong sa kanya, "Kung ang tatay mo ay mamamatay
na, at ang huling hiling niya sa iyo ay maging lalaki ka, tatanggapin
mo ba hiling niya o hindi? At bakit?" At ang sagot ng bakla na tunay na nakapagpabago ng pananaw ko noon sa mga homosexuals ay ito, "Hindi ko tatanggapin ang hiling ng aking ama, ngunit may isa ako ipapangako sa kanya… na ako ay magiging isang mabuting tao." — O di Bah? totoo naman, shempre nanalo siya sa sagot niya 
For those who weren’t able to read the PDI the past few days, there has been an interesting exchange of views of a former Justice of theSupreme Court and a great grand son of a past President of the Republic (or the Commonwealth). It is an interesting read for homophobics and homosexuals. To my homosexual friends, you have me on your side. I SUPPORT YOU AND ACCEPT YOU
‘Don we now our gay apparel’
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer
Last updated 02:14am (Mla time) 08/12/2006
Published on Page A10 of the August 12, 2006 issue of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer
HOMOSEXUALS before were mocked and derided, but now they are regarded
with new-found respect and, in many cases, even treated as celebrities.
Only recently, the more impressionable among our people wildly welcomed
a group of entertainers whose main proud advertisement was that they
were "queer." It seems that the present society has developed a new
sense of values that have rejected our religious people’s traditional
ideas of propriety and morality on the pretext of being "modern" and
"broad-minded. "
The observations I will here make against homosexuals in general do not
include the members of their group who have conducted themselves
decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also
for the gay population in general. A number of our local couturiers, to
take but one example, are less than manly but they have behaved in a
reserved and discreet manner unlike the vulgar members of the gay
community who have degraded and scandalized it. I offer abject apologies
to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not
inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.
The change in the popular attitude toward homosexuals is not particular
to the Philippines. It has become an international trend even in the
so-called sophisticated regions with more liberal concepts than in our
comparatively conservative society. Gay marriages have been legally
recognized in a number of European countries and in some parts of the
United States. Queer people — that’s the sarcastic term for them –
have come out of the closet where before they carefully concealed their
condition. The permissive belief now is that homosexuals belong to a
separate third sex with equal rights as male and female persons instead
of just an illicit in-between gender that is neither here nor there.
When I was studying in the Legarda Elementary School in Manila during
the last 1930s, the big student population had only one, just one,
homosexual. His name was Jose but we all called him Josefa. He was a
quiet and friendly boy whom everybody liked to josh but not offensively.
In the whole district of Sampaloc where I lived, there was only one
homosexual who roamed the streets peddling "kalamay" and "puto" and
other treats for snacks. He provided diversion to his genial customers
and did not mind their familiar amiable teasing. I think he actually
enjoyed being a "binabae" [effeminate] .
The change came, I think, when an association of homos dirtied the
beautiful tradition of the Santa Cruz de Mayo by parading their kind as
the "sagalas" instead of the comely young maidens who should have been
chosen to grace the procession. Instead of being outraged by the
blasphemy, the watchers were amused and, I suppose, indirectly
encouraged the fairies to project themselves. It must have been then
that they realized that they were what they were, whether they liked it
or not, and that the time for hiding their condition was over.
Now homosexuals are everywhere, coming at first in timorous and
eventually alarming and audacious number. Beauty salons now are served
mostly by gay attendants including effeminate bearded hairdressers to
whom male barbers have lost many of their macho customers. Local shows
have their share of "siyoke" [gay men], including actors like the one
rejected by a beautiful wife in favor of a more masculine if less
handsome partner. And, of course, there are lady-like directors who are
probably the reason why every movie and TV drama must have the off-color
"bading" [gay] or two to cheapen the proceedings.
And the schools are now fertile ground for the gay invasion. Walking
along the University belt one day, I passed by a group of boys
chattering among themselves, with one of them exclaiming seriously,
"Aalis na ako. Magpapasuso pa ako!" ["I'm leaving. I still have to
breastfeed!" ] That pansy would have been mauled in the school where my
five sons (all machos) studied during the ’70s when all the students
were certifiably masculine. Now many of its pupils are gay, and I don’t
mean happy. I suppose they have been influenced by such shows as
"Brokeback Mountain," our own "Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros" (both
of which won awards), "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," and that talk
program of Ellen Degeneres, an admitted lesbian.
Is our population getting to be predominantly pansy? Must we allow
homosexuality to march unobstructed until we are converted into a nation
of sexless persons without the virility of males and the grace of
females but only an insipid mix of these diluted virtues? Let us be
warned against the gay population, which is per se a compromise between
the strong and the weak and therefore only somewhat and not the absolute
of either of the two qualities. Be alert lest the Philippine flag be
made of delicate lace and adorned with embroidered frills.
http://opinion. inq7.net/ inquireropinion/ columns/view_ article.php? article_id= 14837
======= at sumagot ang isang bakla===============
Homophobia is hell
By Oliver Pulumbarit
Inquirer
Last updated 05:07pm (Mla time) 08/18/2006
WORDS HURT EVEN worse than sticks and stones, sometimes.
We discover their power early on, and the fact that school is a
battlefield where taunts, insults and threats are practically an
evolving art form. Usually, the most hurtful ones are aimed at those
who don’t conform to the majority’s definition of “normal.” Bakla,
bading, binabae, syoke… they can be hurled with utmost force and
fierceness by schoolmates, relatives, and even teachers and other
authority figures.
Those who know they’re gay feel like nobody will ever understand
them. They’re lucky if they have parents or friends who do. If not,
chances are, they’re forced to blend in, because it is school, after
all, and denying several years worth of self-hate, shame and guilt may
feel preferable over enduring verbal ridicule, or physical injury, or
both, on a daily basis. Society has no place, we’re told and taught as
youngsters, for those who aren’t macho, or religious, or upholders of
“tradition.”
In this day and age, there are still gay kids and adults suffering
the same savage bullying and intolerance, regardless of their
nationality, race, or religious affiliation. It’s always painful to
read about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of hate crime
victims Matthew Shepard and Brandon Teena, or those who’ve committed
suicide because they felt that they could never fit in. It’s hard not
to shed a tear while hearing stories of people suffering unbelievable
humiliation because of their sexual preference. It’s frightening to
think that, yes, it could’ve been you. Or your lover, friend, mom, dad,
sibling, teacher, doctor, priest, lawyer, employer, even your favorite
movie star.
Ideology of evil
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are still being
demonized by the supposedly educated guardians of morality. It’s
especially infuriating when anti-gay sentiments directly come from
recognized religious leaders. Almost five years ago, Rev. Jerry Falwell
irresponsibly declared on “The 700 Club” that the 9/11 terrorist
attacks were God’s way of punishing their country. He lambasted his
perceived culprits, people “who have tried to secularize America,”
among them “gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle.” Pat Robertson, not surprisingly, agreed. You
just have to wonder how they can be so judgmental and capable of
spewing such vitriol, when their faith is supposed to be based on
tolerance and understanding. It’s actually dangerous when influential
figures condemn unthinkingly and with impunity, because, let’s face it,
their words are canon. It’s truly bizarre then, that the late Pope John
Paul II and his successor Pope Benedict have both openly spoken against
gay people and unions repeatedly, too. Does God really consider
homosexual relationships an “ideology of evil,” and “weak”? Isn’t the
deity supposed to be unconditionally gender-blind and more informed
than that?
So many haters are eager to stereotype them, eager to warn others of
their “unnatural” tendencies, eager to announce that they’re all
hell-bound. In this country, there are still companies that refuse to
hire qualified gay persons. Cross-dressers are often heckled by
janitors in comfort rooms, or are barred from certain establishments. A
friend’s homophobic co-worker commented last year that the devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina was punishment for “the numerous
homosexuals” in New Orleans. Wow. Talk about having mixed-up issues!
When your sexuality or gender identity, an integral part of your being,
is devalued or despised by someone else, whoever that may be, then
speak up. Don’t be afraid. Don’t offer the other cheek. Call other
people’s attention to it. It is a big deal.
Alan Moore’s “V for Vendetta” depicted a world where subversives and
minorities were hatefully rounded up, including those whom the fascist
government in that story considered sexual deviants. Prisoners were
subjected to harrowing medical experiments and other indignities. Only
about six decades back, in the real world, that has actually happened
in Nazi concentration camps, to gay men, who had to wear identifying
pink triangle badges. Today, same-gender relationships in parts of the
world are still taboo; even consenting adults are actively arrested for
it and subjected to unnecessary shaming. While we have pride parties
for gays, certain countries have prison sentences for them.
If you are a gay person and you haven’t done so already, speak up
and keep making your horror to such injustices known. You don’t have to
out yourself if you feel that it’s an inconvenient time, but try to
reach out to others who can speak for you. It is very fortunate and
important that there are active gay advocacy groups in the Philippines
now such as ProGay, Ang Ladlad, The Library Foundation, LAGABLAB, and
several other tireless organizations that continue to fight for various
GLBT rights, and are working for the passage of a bill that would
criminalize discrimination. The Rainbow Rights Project, a group of
lawyers and activists, is distributing free “Pink Cards,” which lists
your rights as a bar patron, and related info that can protect you from
corrupt or fake law enforcers. Arm yourself with knowledge. Google
these groups, learn from them and support them.
Be proud
And if someone cites some verses from Leviticus to condemn you (like
a politician did in a local debate show just two years ago), respond by
saying that he or she is deliberately ignoring sexist and barbaric
customs in nearby passages. Look them up. They’re there.
It’s also very important to love yourself. Be proud that you are truthful, free, and aren’t doing anyone harm.
To parents who think that this is none of their concern, please
think again. If you suspect that your children may be suffering in
silence, talk to them. Go beyond what your elders taught you. Your
child can be gay, or not gay, regardless if he or she is acting
effeminately or in a masculine manner. Face your fears and understand
them, and assure them that you will be willing to listen. Gayness is
not a disease or a condition that can be “cured.”
The reality of it is, unbeknownst to you, your teen son or daughter
may be involved with someone for months or years already, and they have
plans to start their own family one day. They may be hoping their union
will be recognized without question in the future, with benefits that
straight spouses enjoy. Yes, homosexual relationships aren’t
destructive, as imagined by those who are narrow-minded and insecure
about the matter.
Role model
If your gay child wishes to be the next Isaac Mizrahi–or the next
Ellen DeGeneres, Q. Allan Brocka, Rustom Padilla, RuPaul, Andoy Ranay,
Allan Heinberg, Aiza Seguerra, Bruce Vilanch, Rosie O’Donnell, Rufus
Wainwright, Bryan Singer, Manuel Quezon III, Ricky Reyes, Melissa
Etheridge, Darren Hayes, Clive Barker–applaud him! Your kid chose a
role model well, and shows fortitude and honesty at an early age. Good
gay people, just like good straight people, have been, and will always
be challenged to think around the conventional and traditional to
survive and make the world better.
It is elating and empowering that there are many people who are now
more accepting of differences, and are celebrating the gay spectrum’s
contributions to all parts of culture. It’s also great that gay people
are acknowledging their identities, and not just at gay-friendly and
gay-frequented districts. But it doesn’t end there. Let’s continue to
speak against the bitter, dinosaur gay-bashers. Let’s use our words and
actions to rescue, heal, and enlighten others before damaging words
lead, once again, to sticks, stones, and worse.
===== at sagot ni justice====
SEPARATE OPINION
Neither here nor there
I had known that Manuel Quezon III was gay, I would have desisted from
writing that column last week on homosexuals out of respect for a
fellow columnist. But now that he has retorted angrily and called me a
bigot among other names, I have no choice but to reply.
started that column with the caution that it was not intended as an
attack against homosexuals in general and did not include “those who
have behaved in a reserved and discreet manner unlike the vulgar
members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized it. I
offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally
include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and
respect.”
Mr. Quezon himself does not consider himself among the exceptions, he
would be what we lawyers call a “proper party,” or one who is directly
injured. In fact, he appears to be severely wounded by my remarks and
is hemorrhaging profusely. He, therefore, has a right to react to my
“insults” in the waspish manner he saw fit.
hate-monger for deriding the vulgar practices of his kind and says I
have no right to say what is tasteless and intolerable. Who has—he?
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that freedom of speech includes not
only the right to express the thought that agrees with us but also the
thought that we abhor. Voltaire was grandiloquent: “I may not agree
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
is normal in the free society and is available to everyone right or
wrong. The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not
confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable, for that
would make the freedom more shadow than substance. To be really
meaningful, it should permit the articulation of even the unorthodox
view, though it is hostile to or scorned by others. One of the purposes
of this freedom, in fact, is to invite dispute.
I do not appreciate the paintings of Picasso, any one who disagrees
with me may say so and explain his reasons. But he cannot attack me
personally for criticizing his idol. Mr. Quezon compares me to the
tyrants in the police states where unacceptable identity or thought is
systematically exterminated. In the free society, ideas are countered
with ideas, not pejorative names. For criticizing his kind, Mr. Quezon
likens me to the Nazis and the Reds and brands me a hate-monger.
is not per se objectionable as Mr. Quezon may imply. Jesus Christ hated
sinners and angrily drove the merchants and money changers from the
holy temple they were desecrating. Was he a hate-monger for doing so?
When Winston Churchill called on his countrymen to resist the enemy
with all their blood, sweat, toil and tears, was he a hate-monger in
the despicable sense of the phrase? That is what Mr. Quezon would call
me for criticizing his kind.
am a hate-monger against grafters, murderers, rapists and other
criminals, but I only dislike the coarse homosexuals he defends, as is
his right. Also disagreeable to me are straight persons who wear loud
clothes, flunkies, hypocrites, humbugs and other unpleasant figures,
male and female, in our imperfect society. I have the right to
criticize them even as they have the right to reply in the common
exercise of our freedom of _expression.
what and whom you hate. If I criticize homosexuals who disgrace their
sex with their tasteless practices and appearance, any one among them
can rise in defense and say why they should not be called obnoxious.
But not in an obnoxious manner.
Quezon faults me for disagreeing with some practices of his kind that I
find intolerable and insists that they have the fundamental right “to
those we choose to love, to have relationships with and with whom we
aspire to share a life marked by a measure of domestic bliss and
emotional contentment.”
romances? As long as you are not violating the law, you are free with
your liaisons, and I for one do not pry into your amorous affairs. Nor
do I want to.
to demand that I agree with your pleasures or to forbid me from
criticizing your “emotional contentment” if they offend the public
interest. You cannot claim a preferred treatment because you are what
you are even as you say you should be treated like the rest of the
people despite what you are.
reservation that my criticisms are only for the distasteful among you,
you piously declare: “I will not embrace him, not for that, much less
shake his hand or offer him the opportunity for civilized
disagreement.” That opportunity is not yours to give, Mr. Quezon, and
as for not embracing me—thank God.
======= at sumagot ang isang pang bakla===============
Oblivious in Cloud Cuckoo-land
ISAGANI CRUZ SAYS IF HE HAD known what he now knows, he would not have
written what he wrote, “out of respect for a fellow columnist.” Justice
Cruz’s belated _expression of consideration is an unrepentant
insistence that his is only an _expression of discontent.
declaration went beyond a defense of sensibilities, and was a case of
the law of unintended consequences in action. What the venerable
Justice Cruz intended as a defense of good taste and morals has sparked
a furious debate on whether he was tasteless and imprudent in what he
asserted and in the words he chose, and on how his critics—including
myself—have responded.
Cruz quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes and Voltaire, who were great men. But
like all people, great or ordinary, they were flawed. Justice Holmes
was a magnificent thinker in every respect save one: his belief in, and
defense from the bench, of eugenics. Eugenics was a pseudoscience that
sought the improvement of populations by what could only be called
selective breeding, including the forced sterilization of individuals
with genetic defects.
penned the American Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Buck vs.
Bell. Carrie Buck had been committed to the Virginia State Colony for
epileptics and the feebleminded. The superintendent wanted the teenage
Buck sterilized (she had the mental age of a 9-year-old, he said),
because Buck had a child out of wedlock (it later turned out she was
raped by the nephew of her adoptive mother, who then committed her ward
to the State of Virginia).
one justice dissented with Justice Holmes’ decision on the case. The
most famous passage of the decision includes, “It is better for all the
world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime,
or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those
who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that
sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the
Fallopian tubes …. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
for Voltaire, his colossal standing in the Age of Enlightenment cannot
obscure his anti-Semitism. In his “Dictionnaire Philosophique,” he said
the Jews were “the most abominable people in the world,” and that they
were “an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most
sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition, and the most
invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and
enriched … still, we ought not to burn them.’’ How kind.
their day, Holmes might have been seen as the personification of
rational and modern thinking relative to public health; and Voltaire
was admired for his brilliant mind and eloquence in defense of reason
and liberty. Today, we know better than to equate vaccinations with
forced sterilizations or to condone anti-Semitism.
Christian principles, I think it neither desirable nor reasonable to
demand that people renounce their interpretation of their faith, in
order to accommodate my contrary opinion. That would be to demand
apostasy, an unconscionable thing. But it is highly reasonable, I
believe—and even imperative—to insist that in a secular society, a
community’s faith shouldn’t result in making the harassment, even the
persecution, of others, justifiable.
differences are far more fundamental. He says he only dislikes “coarse
homosexuals,” and says we can agree to disagree as we might about, say,
Picasso. He says he’s only expressing his views and that it is an
exaggeration—and obnoxious—to object.
Cruz can take pride in the “macho,” which is his culture, though he
ignores the harsh reality that macho men tend to find the solution for
what they dislike in the use of their fists, or baseball bats, or guns:
for what is machismo without violence? It thrives on the kind of
enforcement of society’s norms he wistfully says would have been
experienced decades ago by the kind of homosexuals he loathes.
the past, present and potential targets of such corrective measures,
those who he says represent a clear and present danger to God and
country, are supposed to meekly accept his endorsement of such methods?
He says there’s a threat; he points to past solutions with nostalgia;
what is the solution he proposes—or which might be proposed upon his
inspiration?
my strong objection to Justice Cruz’s insisting on a distinction
between acceptable and unacceptable gays. There is the danger that in
less discerning hands—including those wielding closed fists, those who
are eager to strike a blow for normality on the faces of those who
flout convention—the distinction he attempts cannot be maintained. And
that even if it were, it would only ensure temporary safety for some,
not all; when in their heart of hearts, all gay people are
fundamentally the same because of their sexuality. And that is why his
distinction is unacceptable: it divides, so that he may rule. That
leaves no room for toleration or cohabitation, much less mutual respect.
may celebrate and even honor people like Holmes, Voltaire, Churchill
(who defended freedom in Europe but also fiercely opposed independence
for India) or Justice Cruz, but there comes a point for all of us where
our own prejudices get the better of us; and it is up to those who are
potentially placed in harm’s way to object, as vigorously as possible,
to prevent the law of unintended consequences from kicking in. Because
taste is not an abstraction; its legitimate defense all too often
legitimizes physical and mental suffering of the kind Justice Cruz will
never have to experience or possibly comprehend.
