Marry, marry, quite contrary: Must we change the law to welcome bride-bride / groom-groom nuptials?

Just let them marry whomever they wish.

This line -- and other statements expressing a similar sentiment -- makes its way into conversations more often these days, whether such conversations are face-to-face or virtual. You'd think it's a plea or a piece of advice directed at a concerned parent hesitant to let go of offspring who are of proper age to make up their own minds about life decisions. Dad believes grownup daughter isn't ready for wedded life and is jumping into it with the wrong guy (imagined scenario). But no, the statement in this case is being directed -- on one level -- at citizens who recognize marriage as something meant to be entered into by one man and one woman. On a higher level, Just let them marry whomever they want  is being directed at the State, to persuade decision-makers to legally recognize marriage between members of the same sex.

It's simply a civil union, some say, and everyone has the right to be in a partnership that is recognized by society.

It seems quite simple, and adjusting the law to accommodate the request of some individuals insisting on their preference may be regarded as a step toward justice for all. Is it simple? And would it be just to make such adjustments on the law? Most importantly, would it be the right thing to do?

Give them what they want, seems the easiest route to take. But think about what my friend Mark pointed out here, about whether believers that marriage should be between one man and one woman, should seek to stop the legislation of same-sex "marriage". I quote his written remarks:

It has been said that state-sanctioned marriage is civil, not religious in nature. Christians will not be forced to solemnize same-sex "marriages". We will not be forced to attend those. In short, we will not be affected. Hence, we have no reason to oppose same-sex "marriage". Worse, they say, the only reason we oppose [it] is our homophobia, our fear and hatred of same-sex couples.

But is this the case? No.

The motivation for us to take a stand in the political and legal arena is that we recognize the Law as one of the highest expressions of our collective beliefs. Modern liberals believe that the Law is simply the rules of the game. We do not believe so. We believe that the Law embodies what our people believe in. It forms the collective teaching we impart to the generation after us.

If we legislate same-sex "marriage", we in effect as a people say that same-sex relations, in the context of marriage which is inherently a sexual relationship, are OK. But that is precisely what we do not want to say. We do not think such relationships are OK. We do not think people will find complete fulfillment in those relationships. Hence, we are committed by our conscience to fight such a legislation. And we have a right and a duty to do so as citizens of this nation, to participate in the debate as we chart our nation's direction.

This is not yet an argument against same-sex "marriage". Rather, this is an argument against those who seek the passage of a law allowing same-sex "marriage" on the mere basis that we believers in "traditional marriage" will not be affected anyway. The basic answer to those people is that that is not true. We will be affected, as our children and children's children will be affected.

Apparently, it takes a broader perspective to see the entire picture, and a more other-centered mindset to learn to consider the repercussions of one's actions on the rest of society.

Maybe bathroom door signs should be "Male DNA" and "Female DNA"

There have been some topics in the past that I'd wanted to blog about but just couldn't, simply because I had nothing else to say beyond one sentence -- maybe two. For example, lately I've noticed a disturbing number of adults who cross the street with a child in tow, and with the little one on the dangerous side. Sometimes it's an adult and a child strolling on a sidewalk, with the child on the dangerous side and whose hand his/her older companion isn't even holding. I had wanted to write about it because to me that's a pretty important matter to point out. But I couldn't think of anything else to say besides "Don't people know the concept of 'the dangerous side'? Why do grown-ups cross the street with kids and let the little ones stay on the dangerous side?" Nothing else comes to mind, because in my opinion, this is something basic.

Another example is littering. You probably see a lot of them, too, specially if Manila is your home -- dudes flicking a cigarette butt just anywhere while walking, tossing a candy wrapper out of a car or jeepney window, and other such sights. Even now that care for the environment has become a concern that's broadcasted and marketed in the mainstream, these things still happen a lot. But I can think of only one thing to say regarding this:

"Don't litter."

That's it. Ah but there's one other thing:

"I am  tempted to make a citizen's arrest each time I see some fellow toss litter just anywhere."

As you can see, elaborating on the point is difficult for me. It's just so basic that more words seem superfluous.

Now lately, there have been instances which demonstrate that something I consider one of the most basic of all basic principles in life is not so basic to some people after all. And that is: boys belong in the men's room, and girls belong in the ladies' room. By that of course I mean males -- biological, natural-born -- and females -- biological, natural-born. The only exceptions I would consider are instances involving toddler and pre-schooler boys (and maybe a year or two more) in which the absence of their dad, uncle or any male relation necessitates their mom, aunt or any female relation bringing them to the ladies' room to do their bathroom business. So, basically, in my mind it's as simple as what I stated above: boys belong in the men's room, and girls belong in the ladies' room. Nothing else to say.

However, even in these times that the basic principle seems to be questionable in some quarters, I couldn't think of anything else to say to drive home the point. And then I saw this on Facebook:

Cute baby huh? The little one made me realize that it's largely about privacy.

And then, recent developments in other parts of the world regarding what have come to be referred to as "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" have helped me see that just because a person says and believes he is something doesn't mean it is so. More specifically, just because a guy says he feels that he's a girl does not mean that he is a girl and that he should expect the environment and everyone else to make adjustments to suit his belief about himself. As a matter of fact, those of us who know better are aware that condoning such a person by affirming his ideas about himself is akin to telling a dude who believes he is a superhero who can fly that he should be proud of himself for being a superhero and to go ahead and launch into flight. It simply is not helping the person any. What he needs is compassion, treatment, and to cultivate a life of faith. What he does not need is other people telling him that his delusions are real and congratulating him for being delusional. That does not sound compassionate to me; if anything, it sounds convenient -- for the people around him, because of course helping the person become grounded in reality can be immensely difficult and will require much effort.

That being said, here is one of the incidents involving the matter of bathroom privacy and the rest of society being forced by institutions to compromise their privacy (not to mention, safety and hygiene) for the sake of individuals who insist on their delusions and therefore demand that rules be adjusted to cater to these delusions. If I may say so, individuals with such a psychological condition need and deserve treatment (psycho-spiritual), not special treatment.

In this situation, a 17 year old boy decided he was actually a girl, and thus should be entitled to use the girls’ locker room and bathroom. The school bent over backwards trying to find a compromise, even offering the guy a private, unisex facility, but that wasn’t good enough. He wanted the girls’ bathroom, and of course, what the girls wanted was entirely irrelevant.

Encouragingly, some of the students in the school didn’t stand for it. They protested this week, insisting it’s not fair to expect girls to use the bathroom or undress around a boy. They’re right, obviously, but it’s worse than that. Let’s be clear: it is ABUSIVE to coerce, intimidate, or otherwise force young girls to share their facilities with a boy. I don’t care if he’s gender confused or not. I don’t care if he wears a wig or not. All I care about, all that matters, all that make a difference, is that he is a boy with boy parts, a boy’s body, a boy’s genetic makeup, a boy’s brain, a boy’s everything. He’s a boy. That’s all. That’s it. That’s the whole story.

Girls (and boys) deserve and are entitled to a safe and private place to change and do their business. It is simply unconscionable and despicable to take that away from them.

Read Forcing girls to share a bathroom with a gender-confused boy is abuse

Here's more food for thought -- involving privacy in locker rooms this time.

"Women and men being naked together in the same locker room, taking showers and doing all this and they're saying that doesn't have any component of a sexual nature to it," [Atty. David] Kallman said.

"You don't have those facts in this case," [Midland County Circuit Court Judge Michael] Beale replied.

Kallman said "we don't have to wait for that to occur" and that the transgender-friendly locker room policy itself is "sexual in nature by allowing men in the women's locker room."

Beale came back to the threshold required for sexual harassment claims several times and Kallman continued to respond by saying the policy itself is sexual in nature and that no actual sexual incidents needed to occur for that to meet the threshold.

Do you see the emperor's frocks?

Gay unions and the tale of the emperor's invisible clothes


Almost two centuries ago, Hans Christian Andersen wrote a short tale about a very vain emperor who hired two tailors, who were in fact swindlers, to make him new clothes. The two promised to make for him the finest suits made of special fabric. They told him the cloth they would use would be invisible to those who were not worthy of their position and to those who were stupid. The emperor’s ministers could not see any cloth but they feared saying so, lest they be deemed unworthy of their position or be considered stupid. Finally, the swindlers pretended to put on the new clothes on the emperor who also pretended that he saw the cloth, lest he be deemed unworthy of being emperor. As he paraded down the streets, a child from the crowd, who was too young and simple to keep up with any pretense, cried out: But he does not have any clothes!

After two centuries, it seems to me that this story is being repeated with the issue on “gay marriage.” This time I would seem to be the child who simply cries out what he sees.

My initial observation about the debates surrounding this issue is that anyone who declares his opinion against gay marriage is right away labeled a bigot. This term is understood as a person who obstinately sticks to his own opinions and is intolerant of other contrary opinions. Another label attached to those who disagree with gay marriage (and the gender ideology accepted and promoted by the LGBT groups) is “homophobic.” This term is understood to refer to an attitude that includes hatred, antipathy, contempt, prejudice and rejection of the persons who practice the lifestyle of the LGBT ideology.

It may happen that because people do not want to be called bigots or homophobic, they are moved to support the LGBT lifestyle and gay marriage. But why the pretense? Why pretend that gay “marriage” is marriage when it really is not?
Now, having said that, I might be labeled by the LGBT groups as a bigot and homophobic. But am I?

If by bigot we mean one who obstinately sticks to his own opinion and is intolerant of others’, I would say the issue at hand here is not a matter of opinion but a matter of scientific truth or fact. That the emperor in the tale was naked was not a matter of opinion but of fact. That marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children and establishing a family is also a fact, a given of nature. I’m just sticking to the facts. Of course, people can deny the facts or can invent their own. But doing so does not change the truth. Now following our definition, could it be that the LGBT ideologists are the real bigots?

If by homophobic we mean one who hates or has antipathies toward the LGBTs, I have to say I do not have such feelings or demeanor. As a priest I have always welcomed them with open arms.

The adjective “homo” has two meanings. One is from the Greek word that means “similar”; and so homosexual means same sex. The other is from Latin, and it means “man.” Using this latter meaning, could it be that the LGBT ideology is really homophobic, that is one that shuns or rejects the true nature of man?

Just like Pope Francis, I do not judge the persons who follow and practice the LGBT ideology. Who am I to judge, he said? What I condemn is the error and the tyranny of that ideology. Gay marriage is not marriage. And like the little child in the tale who cried out that the emperor was naked, I must say, homosexual acts are shameful.

- Fr. Cecilio Magsino
Philippine Daily Inquirer / July 17, 2015

Ending her gay relationship: A woman shares her story

In a previous post I had shared the testimonies of four men who were, at one time or another, in homosexual relationships. They eventually decided to break free from those relationships and live as God had intended them to. Based on their accounts, their love for God proved to be more than their love for their partners and for the lifestyle they hung on to for so long.

As I read their stories, I wondered -- as I had done several times before -- where the stories were of women getting out of same-sex relationships. It was more common to come across news and features of gay men who talked about their journey. And then I stumbled on this:

If you want to read yet another diatribe that’s “pro-gay” or “anti-gay,” then this article isn’t for you. We’ve all had quite enough of those anyway, haven’t we?
I just want to tell a little of my story, with the hope that maybe someone out there will hear me differently than so many of the aforementioned sound bites circulating right now. Warning: You may not like the way my story turns out. You may feel sorry for me, or even be angry with me. You may feel flustered that my story doesn’t fit nicely into a theological box that you would like to keep nice and tidy. You may hate the advice I have to give, but please know that what I share is coming from a place of love and concern. Prayerfully, I’ll even encourage someone out there.
So…here it goes.

I am a Christian, one who believes that what the Bible says about sexuality is of great importance. I’m also someone who was in a same-sex relationship for many years, even as I claimed Christ. For a long time these were the two things that defined me.
There are lots of us out there actually, even in the most conservative of churches. Most often we don’t talk about it, but today I will, because I want you to know that there is a story contrary to the one heard on repeat in the media every day.
It was during college when I met the person who would quickly become my best friend, someone I would eventually consider something more akin to a soul mate. It took a couple of years, but eventually the emotional closeness we shared gave way to a physical intimacy.
To make a long, long story short: I was terrified about what was happening, but I also loved it. As our familiarity and affection toward one another grew, a coldness and distance was developing between God and me. Because of this, I tried many times to fight against it, but was unwilling to cut off the friendship, so I just carried on, the depth of our relationship kept hidden from the outside world, even as we actively pursued ministry together. We lived together for years until the Lord painfully pulled our lives apart.
Oh and friends, did I mention that I LOVED her? It wasn’t a “butterflies in the stomach” kind of love. It was a ‘You are my person” kind of love. The, “Whatever life throws at us, I want it to be with you,” kind of love. And life threw a lot at us. I would have gladly spent every minute of the rest of my days with her. I loved her certainly no less than someone loves their spouse. We had shared 8 years of friendship as well as the same home and the same pets (read: children). We had worked together, gone to school together, eaten all our meals together, traveled the world together, and shared all our deepest thoughts with each other.
So I know what it’s like to truly love someone and be frustrated that if only one of you was a different gender it would all be ok. I know what it’s like to genuinely love Jesus and want to serve Him, and yet, to feel this other undeniable pull; this thing that says, “You’re different.” I get it: the unwanted attraction you sense when you were just minding your own business, or the discouragement you feel when you think that because you’re too butch or too effeminate, no one of the opposite sex would find you attractive even if you wanted them to.
I so desperately wanted it to be ok. I wanted the Bible to say it was ok, so I looked for those who argued that it did. I read articles and books about the Greek being mistranslated and passages being taken out of context, but as much as I wanted them to be the answer, I knew enough about how to read my Bible on its own grounds that I was hard to convince.

Full story

A hodgepodge of headlines around the globe

July has been most interesting so far in quite a few parts of the world. While a lot of people continue to do good, there are some places whose residents are experiencing one kind of ordeal or another due to circumstances beyond their control. Some yield to the suffering; others fight back. There are those who take it all in stride while working towards something better.

The bad news can bog us down if we're not vigilant about the amount and kind of materials we read everyday. And that's why I start and end the list of headlines below with stories which demonstrate that the world we live in is a good place as long as we continue to do good.

So, we take a look at what's been happening in other parts of the world, and we do what we can to make the world better -- from where we are, with what we have.

Nine-year-old Filipino Daniel Cabrera

Filipino boy receives scholarship after photograph of him studying on the street goes viral


Christian farmers fined $13,000 for refusing to host same-sex wedding are fighting back


74 children executed by ISIS for 'crimes' that include refusal to fast, reports says


 

Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto

Kenyan leaders to Obama: Don't lecture us on gay 'marriage'


Oregon bakers on $135k fine: 'Christians get ready for civil disobedience'


Pope Francis' Mass in Ecuador focuses on family, draws multitudes


Atlanta Fire Chief fired for 'anti-gay' views 'absolutely' wants his job back


Kansas police officer buys diapers, shoes for mom who shoplifted them for kids

Breaking free: 4 gay men speak out

The following contains testimonies from men who, at one time or another, engaged in homosexual activity and who know well the struggles that come with being attracted to persons of the same sex. There may be cultural differences (two are from the Philippines while the other two are in the West) but amid all of these and amid the experiences they have gone through, the one thing that led them to seek the truth and, inadvertently, to a joy and freedom they did not know before then, was the choice to love God. As one of them put it, "I'm attracted to men, but I love God more."

Kung ako lang ang masusunod, gusto ko rin sanang mag-asawa ng kapwa ko lalake kasi 'yan ang hilig ng katawan ko at ilang beses na rin ako nagmahal ng kapwa ko lalake. Umabot pa noon sa puntong nangarap kaming magpakasal kahit bawal pa noon. Pero kumilos ang Diyos sa buhay ko hanggang sa natunton ko na mas mahal ko ang Diyos kaysa sino mang lalake na dumaan sa buhay ko. At ayon sa banal na kasulatan, hindi ang makiapid sa kapwa ko lalake ang gusto ng Diyos para sa buhay ko. May dakila Siyang plano para sa buhay na ibinigay Niya sa akin. Kaya pinili kong sundin ang Diyos imbes na ang sarili ko. Ang plano Niya ang perpekto. Ngayon, mayroon akong kapayapaan at ligaya sa buhay na hindi kayang tumbasan ng anupaman. Salamat sa pagpapatawad mo o Diyos! Alleluya!

(If it were up to me, I would like to marry another man because that would be following the dictates of my body and I have loved men several times. It even reached a point in which we dreamed of going through with a wedding despite its being prohibited at the time. But God worked in my life until I realized that I love God more than any man who had entered and would enter my life. And according to sacred scriptures, to fornicate with other men  is not what God wants for me. He has a great plan for the life he has given me. Hence, I chose to follow God rather than my own desire. His plan is perfect. Now, I have peace and joy that nothing whatsoever can equal. Thank you for your forgiveness, oh God! Alleluia!)

- Cesar Evangelista Buendia, from a post on his Facebook account (set to public)

* * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

According to [Jovi Atanacio], while many members of the same sex desire union with their romantic partners because of love, Atanacio believes true love desires more than just physical and emotional union.

“It wishes the good of the other. It wishes the good of the other person, encouraging him or her to embrace the virtue of chastity,” he explained.

He clarified, however, that chastity does not mean turning one’s back on love, pointing out it is but a profound and courageous expression of that same love.

Single and chaste, Atanacio, who also maintains the Facebook group “Wanted: Filipino Saints”, underscored the need to grow in the understanding of what love really means.

“If two members of the same sex profess love for each other, they will strive to do what is best for one other. They will encourage one another to identify themselves as beloved children of God who happen to experience same-sex attractions, rather than people who are defined by their sexual urges and happen to believe in God.”

- from 'I'm attracted to men, but I love God more' - Catholic man

* * * * * * * * * * *

The other day, I was joking with someone about smoking crack, like you do because people make jokes about using hard drugs with the understanding that, ‘oh, nobody I know deals with that.’ And then literally the day after I made that joke, I found out that somebody who I’ve known for a very long time has been smoking crack for months and months.

And that is exactly the sort of situation I dealt with growing up, which is where it was sort of standard to make jokes, ‘ha ha, gay people’ because nobody we know is gay – and of course if you hear that sort of thing all the time, you begin to think of yourself as outside of the realm of normal human experience.

Is that how you felt growing up?

Absolutely.

Do you think that that actually pushed you more outside ‘the realm of normal human experience,’ because you perceived it to be that way?

Very much so. It sounds cliché to say it, but your perception really does become your reality. If you believe yourself to be of such a nature that you don’t actually belong in society with most other people, then you begin to interpret small thoughtlessnesses as large exclusions, and so you become less able to interact with your actual peers. And then they see you beginning to draw back, and start to think of you as someone who doesn’t really want to be part of their group anyway.

How have you managed to overcome that in adulthood?

Partly through therapy; partly through the group, People Can Change; partly through friendship; and partly through my spiritual director.

- Joseph Prever a.k.a. Steve Gershom, from Why choose celibacy? A gay Catholic speaks out, the second of a 2-part interview

I now pronounce you...

On the personal level, one thing that hampers fruitful discussion and clear understanding where the matter of homosexuality, same-sex "marriage" and "gay pride" are concerned is, disagreement seems to be interpreted as hate by quite a few people. Emotions really do get in the way many times, so dealing with people -- loved ones especially -- who wrestle with same-sex attraction and are emotionally entangled in a relationship requires a considerable degree of tact. It is possible to maintain good friendships and to stand by your deeply held values simultaneously, and it goes without saying that regular prayer and allowing grace to nourish your life of faith will see you through.

On the level of society, here is something you will want to watch as it presents the issue with eye-opening facts -- all in 5 minutes. No mental gymnastics required :-)

Vanity and what's fair: the person on the cover

Women are beautiful because they are women. Womanhood is itself beautiful. Women bring something distinct and special to the world. They fill a void and play a role that no man can.

A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being — all things Bruce can only mimic.

A woman is a woman. She has earned that title. She pays for that title. She suffers with that title and gives life with that title and lives from conception until death and beyond with that title. She is that title.

- from Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women

* * * * * * * * * *

I’m not surprised that the conclusion he arrived at was that he needed to surgically alter his outward appearance in an attempt to calm down the inner turmoil.

What is this world we live in? Why can we not see that superficiality is self-defeating in the end? We all seek communion, to be loved and accepted for who we are INSIDE. We need people to see beyond the masks, past the walls, into the very core of who we are as human beings, as God’s creation. When that happens, we blossom, as flowers in the sun. We don’t cower in the darkness waiting for death to come for us.

The world seems to think this is the blossoming, the ultimate freedom for Bruce Jenner. But he has simply exchanged the masks he was wearing before, the walls he put up around himself, for new masks and new walls. Sooner or later the masks will have to come off, and the walls have to crumble.

- from Dear Bruce, You Need the Almighty, Not Caitlyn



 When I started this post, I honestly didn't know what else to do with it besides provide excerpts and links to stories worth reading about the issue that has hogged the headlines in media-saturated societies for weeks now.

When I started this post, the Vanity Fair cover image had likely become a familiar sight to most if not all heavy social media users. It still is being used to accompany many write-ups pertaining to Bruce Jenner, homosexuality, gender, "transgenderism," and anything remotely related to these. But the initial novelty and avid interest that come with anything out of the ordinary being presented in media have waned, as expected. Is that good or bad? I don't know. Interest when it's prompted by morbid curiosity can easily lead to a gossip session, that much I know. A genuine desire to learn and to bring something helpful to the table, on the other hand, is the way to go. So, is the general waning interest in the Bruce Jenner news along with all the details something to rejoice or lament? It depends on what motivates people to want to know more about the whole thing.

When I started this post, I wished it were easier to constantly remember that Bruce is a person with feelings, ideas, aspirations, talents, struggles, unfortunate experiences, a soul. He also has parents, children, women who at one time or another were his spouse. This means the center of this entire issue is a human being, not some object or commodity but someone who ought to be accorded respect and compassion that is due any child of God. Now, after poring over news, more detailed features as well as opinion pieces, his humanity has somehow become more pronounced in my mind. Who will be unable to regard the one-time Olympian with even just a tinge of compassion (or pity even) upon learning that he struggled as a young boy with the confusion of seriously wanting to be a girl and opted to hide his feelings for many years instead of confiding in someone who could have guided him and helped him find healing? Reading further about the things he has said in recent interviews shows even more clearly his confusion pertaining to his sexuality. Learning that his mother will continue to call her son "Bruce" because "his father and I named him that" is all I need to keep in mind that, hey, this is a human being -- with parents who will have to deal with their son's choices and struggles and come across the comments (both heartening and unsavory) that others may make. If only for the sake of being more careful about the manner in which I evaluate this issue regarding Bruce, I shall do my best to remember that amid the discussions of "feminization surgery," "gay pride" and gender confusion, is another child of God.

Now, compassion and compromise don't necessarily go hand in hand, so it's perfectly possible to maintain one's love and respect for someone while pointing out what needs to be pointed out. Going along and agreeing, after all, may demonstrate many other things and not genuine caring and friendship; everyone has had an experience or two regarding this, so though I won't elaborate, you'll know exactly what I mean if you do some reminiscing about your own relationships.

Let me share with you a piece I came across today and which resounded with me the most so far as it touched on vital points that didn't even occur to me prior to reading it. Below is an excerpt but -- like the two previous materials I included here, I highly encourage you to read the whole thing.

When an emaciated young woman suffering from anorexia tells us she is fat, we don’t show her to the plus size department and hand her diet pills.  When someone suffering from severe body dysphoria tells us his arm or leg isn’t supposed to be there, we don’t rush him in for an amputation or give him a chainsaw.  If a person is deluded into thinking he’s Barack Obama, we don’t let him anywhere near the Oval Office.  But for some reason, our society has chosen to treat gender dysphoria differently.  We reinforce the delusion instead of helping people accept the reality of their own biology.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to carry on as if nothing is wrong, or even out of the ordinary.  Schools and businesses are forced to permit biological males to use female-only toileting and shower facilities, regardless of how women and girls may feel about it.  Female athletes are forced to compete against biological males, regardless of the added risk to their safety.

- from The Emperor is a Crossdresser

* * * * * * * * * * 

While thinking of a  title for this post, the name "Bruce" reminded me of other men with the same name: specifically Bruce Banner and Bruce Wayne. Funny how both happen to be superheroes, and Bruce Jenner is in some way a hero as well owing to his athletic skills and the honor he brought his country and family through his Olympic feats. But the first two are fictional characters, and that spells the difference. Bruce Jenner is not 2-dimensional but a real person. And with that comes a certain dignity that no one can ever take away, especially if he himself knows and understands its essence, lets it guide his choices, and holds on to it.

Pondering "I do," "I want," "I believe," and other phrases we take for granted

Here's something that struck me today:

Why are Christians working so hard to defend traditional marriage?

The answer comes from what marriage is about. Marriage is not about special rights one receives from the government in order to have a better life. Marriage is an institution by which humans learn to conform to their gender role in love in order to serve God, their spouse, and their children—then their community, etc. The issue of gay marriage is that people want to force marriage to be something it never was: a relationship about my feelings, wants, desires, and passions. The redefinition of marriage necessitates a fundamental paradigm shift. In essence, the new marriage definition removes God as necessary, conforms the spouse and children to serve the person's idea of his/her own sexual role, and demands the community support the person's idea of his/her own sexual role. Traditional marriage teaches innately sacrificial love, but new marriage demands selfishness. Which one is better for society?

- from the Facebook page  We Defend Marriage -- and We're Gay 



There have also been several incidents in the US involving weddings, cakes, and bakers, but I can't say that I've read each of the stories entirely -- in fact, I've only relied on comments I've come across on social media (from different sides of the issues) to form an idea of what may have transpired. So I'm unable to provide any accurate details about those happenings (I'll share some of them in another post the first chance I get). However, here below is something I can definitely say shows the principle guiding the conviction of many -- particularly those who strive to remain faithful to the teachings of the living God, when they choose to recognize only marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

Don't you think this makes the issue a tad clearer? I do.

Going beyond "nuthin' we can do about it"

When one comes across weird or scandalous news from time to time, there's the danger of getting so accustomed to such things that hardly is any repugnance or even aversion experienced with each story read and each anecdote heard. In other words, what are basically manifestations of perversion might eventually be viewed by many as normal or even commendable. But I have faith in humanity so here I am, sharing links to stories that reflect the direction society is heading. Though truth and goodness prevail most of the time, let's not lose our footing by adopting a mindset along the lines of "That's the way life is, nothin' we can do about it!" when we do hear of unfortunate incidents. No, no. Unless you throw in the towel and allow a defeatist attitude to guide your days, these stories are merely reminders of our mission. What mission, you ask? Well, only you can answer that because each is a unique individual for which the Maker has made a unique game plan. Have you figured out what yours is? After all, as someone once uttered, "What man is a man who does not make the world better?"

Never mind if that intro I just wrote has nothing to do with the stories below, which are fairly recent. I just hope you became aware that we can't simply turn a blind eye to these things happening around us and act as if life is all about living a me-first existence.

Family sues because nursing home won't starve mother to death

Lesbian couple gives adopted son hormone-blockers to make him a girl

Euthanasia out of control: Belgian transsexual euthanized after botched sex change

Using blurred analytical lenses?

This is all that I'll point out about it for now. More informative and detailed materials to come soon.

State of the (same-sex) union matters

There was a time that the word "queer" was simply a synonym for "weird" and "strange" and meant nothing more. If I remember correctly, I first encountered the word in one of my Nancy Drew books (probably to describe a suspect the protagonist was trailing in one of her pursuits).

Language has a way of morphing so that new meanings are eventually attached to certain words -- like "queer." To this day I'm not certain whether or not this word is derogatory, for though it's been used in movie dialogues to insult characters with homosexual tendencies, it also seems to have the "approval" of the men concerned by way of show titles, as in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. So when referring to men or women who are attracted to members of the same sex, I simply say "people with same-sex attraction" (SSA) or same-sex couples.

Do you have friends with SSA? And have you been hearing of efforts to make it possible for two men or two women to get married? It's been going on for a few years now, and in the past decade, several countries and parts of the United States have given recognition to same-sex couples being part of a "marriage." Lately people have been talking about the notion of changing the definition of marriage. What do you think of that? If you aren't exactly raring to go there, at least you probably feel that you owe it to your friends to support them by advocating moves to legitimize their unions and to recognize their "right' to get married, just like any other couple who have the deepest affection for one another.

Well, regardless of where you stand on the issue right now, here's a short video I recommend. It's simple and presents the ideas surrounding the topic in "plain English". One line that struck me:

"They can respect Dan and Michael's lifestyle choice without affirming and embracing their lifestyle."

Another one:

"Changing the definition of marriage was a big deal and it could have some serious consequences, consequences that would affect not only their children but also their community."

Some of the figures/stats in there may be inaccurate since a lot has developed since the video came out (2008?). At the time, too, Proposition 8 was still being debated on in the US state of California. But everything else is pretty much the same no matter what decade you're in.

This blog has several entries under the "homosexuality" tag so feel free to explore that if you'd like a glimpse of other news, features and insights on the topic.





 

"Baby capsules," normalizing aberrant behavior, and a great movie

A look back at the goings-on in May as far as the culture of life is concerned.


A new Hollywood movie that breaks the rules

After peaceful protests failed, Mexico's "Cristeros" formed an army to fight the government in the name of defending their religious freedom. The three-year war cost 56,000 lives, but in the end, the Cristeros mostly prevailed.

Hollywood wouldn't be expected to touch a topic that put Christians in a heroic role.

But that isn't where the film's uniqueness starts: "Many Mexicans have never heard of the Cristiada," Garcia told IBD. The film was made not by Hollywood producers, he said, but by a Mexican producer who wanted to inform his countrymen about their own invisible past.

"It's a fairly taboo topic in Mexico, where the history has been swept under the rug," Garcia said. "They did it because they believed in it."

* * * * *

A gay pride parade in Moscow

Pro-family activist Dmitry Tsarionov told reporters: “I will not allow perverts to bring the wrath of God onto our city,” and added: “I want our children to live in a country where a sin that so awfully distorts human nature is not preached in schools,” according to the Associated Press.

* * * * *

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists uniting to fight abortion in Mauritius

Catholics and Anglicans in the island nation of Mauritius have organized a common front against legislation under debate to legalize abortion, while United Nations bureaucrats and the “human rights” group Amnesty International are urging the government to approve the bill.

The two religious groups have also joined with representatives of other religions, including Muslims and Buddhists, to create the “Platform for Life,” an umbrella group that affirms the fundamental value of human life. A rally held by the Platform on May 20th, the day the bill was debated in Parliament, reportedly drew 400 people, including religious leaders, doctors, politicians, and pro-life activists.

* * * * *

Former boy band member who turns pro-life advocate

Just because abortion is legal does not make it right. There was a time in this country when denying a woman the right to vote was legal. Was it right? No. There was a time in this country when slavery was legal. Was it right? No way.

* * * * *

40+ Catholic institutions suing Obama government

This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.

* * * * *

Doctors in India who feed aborted girls to dogs

“A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals. This is known to everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as Munde is influential,” Deshpande said.

She added that some other doctors in Beed kept dogs for the same purpose – to avoid the hassle of disposing of the bodies.

* * * * *

A president who opposes right to life admits and who admits opposing marriage, too

The main stream media is abuzz over the acknowledgement by President Barack Obama in an interview with ABC News that he no longer supports marriage as between one man and one woman. The politically correct way of writing about his announcement would be to follow the verbal engineers in the Human Rights Campaign, the Nation's largest Public Interest Law Firm promoting what they call the "LGBT Agenda", and say the President supports "marriage equality". I will not do so. The President opposes marriage.

* * * * *

Pulverized babies made into "health-enhancing" capsules

These pills, sold as a “stamina enhancer” and to “cure certain diseases,” are being smuggled across China’s border and into South Korea. Some fear that the pills may begin to appear on the internet for sale worldwide. A South Korean documentary team first brought this horrific trade to light in the summer of 2011. The San Francisco Times reported on the team’s findings:

The Korean team acquired the dead baby capsules and ran DNA tests on it. The test results reportedly indicated the pills were 99.7 percent human. The test also found hair and nail remnants, and even the gender of the baby could be identified.

Nobody relishes sharing weird news, especially that which makes it undeniable that there is a diminishing regard for the lives of persons. So let me end this post with the trailer of the movie mentioned above, a movie that at least shows that "Hollywood," "substance" and "integrity" can be compatible. I hope this'll will be shown in my country, too!

When the sometimes-unthinking media throw the punches

There's been a lot of talk lately about the need for more tolerance and compassion. But could it be that such calls for tolerance and compassion are mere attempts to get people accustomed to the idea and the sight of indecency and unnatural behavior and pave the way for their acceptance into society? I'm referring to indecency in various forms but more specifically to homosexual activity and, as a possible consequence, same-sex unions as legitimized by civil law.

So now that I've expressed an idea that may ruffle the feathers of some of the noisier and more vocal members of society, what I actually said may be misconstrued to mean something different. For instance, I wrote "the idea and the sight of indecency and unnatural behavior" up there, and even though what I have in mind are actions and situations, it's possible that someone may cry "foul!" and claim that I'm a bigot for saying or even implying that people who experience same-sex attraction are indecent. I'll leave it at that, partly to make anyone reading this think more about the point. There's too little level-headed analysis and too much hysterics and knee-jerk reactions going on these days; offering a challenge for rumination, therefore, could be the way out of such unprocessed conclusions that fill the blogosphere and mainstream media.





Zeroing in on a particular person and issue here, let me provide some links that can get you going on your way to rumination amid the multi-sensory assault you may be contending with as far as Philippine boxing champ and legislator Manny Pacquiao's supposed anti-gay remarks are concerned.

Instead of sharing stories that tell the details of the original incident, allow me to share excerpts and links to a few articles that shed light on the mistaken ideas that such stories started and fueled. (Besides, details of the incidents can be found in some of the links)

All of this was ignoring one big thing: Pacquiao hadn’t said all of what was being attributed to him, and that his biblical evocation had been inserted by the interviewing writer. (The writer was not completely magnanimous in clarifying these points, either.) On Wednesday, Pacquiao spoke up to clear things up. “I’m not against the gay people,” he said. “What I said is I’m not in favor of same-sex marriage.” Contacted by the Journal, Pacquiao spokesman Fred Sternberg shed a little more light on the situation: “Manny’s sponsors know him well enough that the quotes in question couldn’t have come from him, which the author of the Examiner.com article confirmed yesterday,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Read What Pacquiao Did and Didn't Say

L.A. bigwig developer Rick Caruso, who has mayoral aspirations, squeezed himself into the Catholic-bashing clown car. He announced on Twitter that Pacquiao would be banned from his trendy shopping complex, The Grove. The mall, Caruso wrote, "is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance."

Except for intolerance of completely mainstream views on gay marriage held by millions of practicing people of faith.

Read How the Gay-Marriage mob slimed a Boxing Champ






Photos from Global Post (top) and The Guardian (above)

The rainbow connection

If you've got homosexual tendencies,

-- that doesn't diminish your dignity as a human being in any way
-- that doesn't give anybody any reason to show you disrespect
-- that doesn't mean you ought to give in to those tendencies
-- that doesn't mean a life of genuine fulfillment and deep joy is out of reach

Homosexual men and women, like anyone else, deserve to be encouraged toward affirming their dignity as human beings.

But homosexuality and its practice are not something to be encouraged, celebrated or distorted into being regarded as manifestations of freedom.

What are we doing to correct the distortions?

* * *

If you're one to support the Gay Pride Parade, whether it's the ones held in Manila, New York or Amsterdam, better think again. Is it authentic freedom or merely exhibitionism and a hedonistic lifestyle that you want to promote?

Excerpts from a LifeSite report about the upcoming parade in Jerusalem:

The “parade,” an international demonstration commonly characterized in North America and Europe by graphic sexual content and public nudity, had been staged somewhat more sedately in Jerusalem until it was banned. In September, the homosexual activist organization, Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance, won a lengthy court battle to have the event allowed and had set a tentative date of November 11th.

Orthodox Jews and other groups in Israel and around the world have protested the event since the summer saying it would desecrate the ancient city that is held holy by three of the world’s great religious traditions. Jewish protests have called the event a “parade of debauchery”.

In an editorial in Jerusalem’s daily, Haaretz titled, “When tolerance is tyranny,” Ellen W. Horowitz called the handling of the situation by police, parliament and the courts “provocative negligence.”

“This isn't about minority rights or freedoms of expression and assembly. It is about the deliberate trampling of the religious and moral sensitivities of the people of Jerusalem,” Horowitz writes.

“The pride movement's peculiar parades have successfully reduced self-expression and freedom to nothing more than a promotion of voyeurism, hedonism, narcissism and exhibitionism. Homophobia is a misnomer, because we're not afraid of the gay community - we're afraid for them.”

Read Ellen Horowitz's editorial, When tolerance is tyranny, here

Suffer the children

What
in the world
are we doing
to
them
???

I stop at two news items this time. Perversion has a way of making its way into the acceptable level when bombarded into readers' consciousness too much at a time. I'm not after shock value per se; it's shock value that will lead to action, then solutions, that would make this blog entry worth the space.

Canadian receives only 3 1/2 years for "worst imaginable forms of child pornography
Child rights advocates decry light sentence by Canada for child pornographer

By Terry Vanderheyden

EDMONTON, March 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Edmonton man who videoed himself sexually abusing his step-children so he could distribute the material to other pedophiles has been handed a three and a half year sentence.

Read more

Slain because he refused to call his mother's lesbian lover `Daddy'
March 23, 2006

By Baldwin Ndaba

Four-year-old Jandre Botha disobeyed an order to call his mother's lesbian lover "Daddy''.

So the lover, Engeline de Nysschen (33), viciously assaulted Jandre while demanding that he must call her "Daddy".

Jandre died from his injuries, which trauma expert Professor Mohammed Dada said were similar to those of a person who had fallen from a double-storey building.

Read more

They know what 'responsible parenthood' means

I can't help but think of the congressional bill that anti-life supporters insist on pushing. Funny that the proponents of House Bill 3773 should choose to call it the "Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act" when one of its provisions is the transfer of the responsibility to form one's own children from the parents/family to the schools.

Education in matters such as human sexuality, "reproductive rights" and attitudes regarding birth control and procreation, will be left to private and public schools -- with mandatory sex education imposed on students from 5th grade to 4th year high school. Opposition to the contraception-and-population-control framework (which characterizes the government's sex education and reproductive health programs) by anyone including parents -- say, if they teach their teenage highschooler about the abortive component of birth control pills and tell her that true love entails sacrifice and, hence, abstinence until the wedding night -- shall be considered "willful disinformation," an act punishable by law (if the bill is passed).

This is happening in the Philippines, and despite the bill's name all this sounds more like a promotion of irresponsible parenthood to me.

Okay, that was meant to be an introduction to a news article I came across about some parents in Kansas, USA who are obviously involved parents and who know what "responsible parenting" means. I wish they were here to enjoin Filipino families to have the same courage and patience in caring for the children.

Parents Act on Schools’ Offensive Reading Material
By Cara Cook

Group provides Web site, resources about what to do.

In the spring of 2004, a group of parents in Overland Park, Kansas, sat down with some of their children’s assigned reading from school. What they found appalled them—and motivated them to do something about it.

Janet Harmon, one of the parents, told Concerned Women for America (CWA) her reaction to her son reading one of the books: “This is a 14-year-old freshman boy, and [the book] had references to oral sex and homosexuality. … I thought it was a mistake!”

One of Classkc.org’s fundamental principles is that parents should have final say regarding the formation of their children’s values, not the state: “The state should not have open season on when, where and how to indoctrinate and form children’s sexual attitudes, but rather, … the parents should have the primary role in values education and overall worldview, particularly in the area of sexual values, for their own children.”

Read the rest at Concerned Women for America

An attraction of the problematic kind

Imagine living in a house full of women.

If you're a woman, no big deal.

If you're a man, that makes all the difference.

You're a man, and your female housemates trust you completely, feel perfectly at home with you.

You're a man, and some of your female housemates pour their heart out to you and ask for advice. Would it be a shock if someone (either you or among them) developed feelings of attachment or intimacy toward another?

Imagine being a man, surrounded by women -- many of them attractive inside and out and striving to remain so -- sharing a home with them. Would that not be a struggle?

There would not be much of a struggle if the man were homosexual. Now imagine if the man experiencing same-sex attraction (or who has had deep-seated struggles with homosexuality) were surrounded by men -- many of them attractive inside and out and striving to remain so and shared a home with them.

This is the situation that any seminarian or priest with homosexual tendencies deals with.

Though Pope Benedict XVI has formally released a document containing guidelines on the matter of homosexuality and the priesthood, some still seem to insist on what they want rather than face the problem squarely, try to understand the principles explained, and heed the indications given.

Why I thank God I couldn't be a priest is not the document released by the Vatican, but it sure tackles the matter head-on -- and quite clearly, too.

Looking squarely at homosexuality

If you've got homosexual tendencies,

-- that doesn't diminish your dignity as a human being in any way
-- that doesn't give anybody any reason to show you disrespect
-- that doesn't mean you ought to give in to those tendencies
-- that doesn't mean a life of genuine fulfillment and deep joy is out of reach

Homosexual men and women, like anyone else, deserve to be encouraged toward affirming their dignity as human beings.

But homosexuality and its practice are not something to be encouraged, celebrated or distorted into being regarded as manifestations of freedom.

What are we doing to correct the distortions?

* * * * *

It's difficult these days to talk about homosexuality without sounding prejudiced against those who engage in homosexual activity. That's why I started off by posting those reminders up there. Hopefully, they'll help you establish a frame of mind that enables you to read through the following material (and other articles in the future) with a more objective orientation.

David Parker, the Massachusetts parent who stood his ground about being involved in determining the kind of education his son was getting in school, said the following in a speech he gave last September:

Parents, you need to ask questions of your school administration, this includes teachers, the principal, director of education, director of health, superintendent, and call your school committee members.
Realize that a discussion on transgenderism and “gay”-headed relationships, while claiming to only present reality to children, usually morphs into approval and acceptance. This occurs in a conversation seamlessly and without your notification.

Do take those words to heart for they apply not only to issues regarding homosexuality; the way we discuss other matters that have a moral dimension have a way of "morphing" into approval and acceptance when we're not as well-grounded as we'd like to be.

What's going on?

Sometimes I really wonder if I contribute to the problem by pointing out the horrible things going on in the world. Shock value diminishes over time, and sometimes I think that by tackling the downside of different issues here, I may be saturating some readers in the process. I certainly hope not! Still, headlines can be indicative of the different turn that events are taking around the globe.

Canadian psych hospital promotes patient sex with private rooms, on-demand porn

There are a lot of good news, too, but one piece of really bad news (or a bizarre incident) can somehow overshadow the positive -- albeit temporarily, of course. Headlines can be shocking, then when you read the report, all you can do most of the time is shake your head, ask "what's the world coming to?" then move on.

First comes gay marriage then comes bestiality in Massachusetts

China moves from bullets to mobile execution vans to improve int'l image

Other times, one can't help but snicker in amusement or probably laugh out loud even. Then what? Remaining passive about these things we read about is an option, of course, but shouldn't bad news move us to act even more? Most of the time, we're in no position to do something about the news we hear of. Maybe not directly.

Berkeley High offers Condom Club
Ad: 'Having sex? Thinking of having sex? Come to room...'

Homosexual gov't minister loaned failed gay porn shop $10,000 taxpayer funds

Maybe these headlines are becoming too much. Or, I'm probably running the risk of making unnatural things and initially repulsive incidents sound natural, acceptable or even attractive in the long run. But that's only for the still media-unsavvy (to make something look ordinary and the most natural thing in the world, bombard the reader/viewer with constant exposure to that which you'd like to seem ordinary and natural). Hopefully, this makes you think about your own awareness (or lack of it) of how you're reacting to the media's manipulation, too.

Sexual affairs between pupils and teachers 'can be beneficial' says UK prof

Animal rights activist: 'Kill the researchers'

Hopefully, too, remaining passive won't be an option for you. That's being part of the problem, not the solution. And nobody would want that.