You can disagree without being disagreeable. Attack the deed, not the doer.
This was, in mildest terms, the feedback to Manny Pacquiao after his incendiary comments on same-sex marriage, which is a sensitive issue in many parts of the world. The level of disagreement has several levels, among them acceptance, tolerance and outright defiance and condemnation. As for the Bible-quoting boxing champion, there is no compromise. He believes in Scripture, particularly on what is unacceptable in the eyes of the God of his beliefs.
Of course, the magnitude of this issue has been fanned and blown up by our penchant for hysterics and drama. There seems to be little room for sober discussion when it comes to matters of personal preference. Our moral outrage seems to need the requisite raised voices, counter-attacks, name-calling and ganging up on people. To a certain extent, we enjoy it, and it’s not funny. Personally, I understand those who were offended. I would not pretend to know their experience firsthand. But I look forward to the day when Filipinos can learn to discuss our differences with as little hysteria as possible, and conduct the disagreement at a higher level. But that’s just my opinion.
On the surface, the Bible specifically mentions homosexuality in the most negative terms, from Leviticus in the Old Testament to the first book of Corinthians and the book of Romans in the New Testament, for a few assumed reasons. One of the reasons is the desire for procreation, which is considered a major component of marriage. In fact, sex was not really considered something you would do for pleasure, and the male bodily secretions associated with it were meant to be used for the sole purpose of making children. Though I am not an expert on Scripture, from my limited understanding, the oft-repeated chapters and verses wherein homosexuality is considered foul have rape (Sodom and Gomorrah), prostitution, slavery and infidelity as their context, all considered undesirable circumstances. As far as I am aware, the Bible does not mention anything about committed relationships between persons of the same sex. Lastly, in its various translations, Hebrews 8:13 speaks of “a new covenant” or new law with the arrival of Jesus Christ. Does this, by default, make the old ones obsolete? It’s a question I find myself asking.
A counselor for a private Roman Catholic group once mentioned to this writer that Christianity was superimposed by the Spanish onto Filipinos’ pre-existing spiritual beliefs, many of which are still very much alive in more remote parts of the country and our tribal communities. He called it “split-level” Christianity, and said that it explains why many people attend weekly church service with one foot outside the door, and why some are devout inside the church, and start fighting in the parking lot over minor things like getting out first. These examples are probably just bad eggs, but it illustrates the point that having a default setting may not be enough. One has to actively seek out his or her beliefs, and own them.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community is a small but vocal, high-profile and often well-connected minority fighting for its place and recognition in Philippine society. They have experienced all sorts of oppression and abuse and, in some cases, even use its shock value for their economic benefit, as comedians and entertainers. Like everybody else, they have their own problems, personal and otherwise, and work hard to overcome them. Some even hide their true selves for fear of any reprisal or negative impact it may have on them personally or professionally. That is a sad fact that cannot be denied. The question is, as in anything else, do we let one disagreeable aspect of someone’s personhood define them in our eyes? How we answer would be most telling for us as a people.
Sportshub ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich once said that “The measure of who we are is how we react to something that doesn’t go our way.” So what does it say about us when we respond with similar violence and bile when someone of stature disagrees with our belief system? Aren’t we as guilty, even when we use our past hurts as the justification for striking back?
For many years, this writer was part of a small but valiant group that worked for the welfare of Amerasian children, those sired then left behind by irresponsible or even deceiving American servicemen. I saw firsthand the discrimination against these abandoned children, mostly based on their skin color. The Caucasian kids were considered beautiful, and the luckier ones were able to have productive careers, some as entertainers here and in other countries. The children of African-American GI’s, however, were treated very badly, called names as kids, made to suffer terrible indignities, and were often considered useless burdens. You wanted to have paler skin, an aspiration that fuels a billion-peso beauty industry in the Philippines alone. That double standard persists today, in how we treat children, women, the sick or elderly, persons with disabilities and the LGBT. That is the true tragedy, that it exists at all. When you think about it, the great majority of the people in those various sectors argue that they did not choose to be that way, but neither do they shrink from it.
In any democracy, we are free to have opinions, no matter how strong. But we are not free to tell others how to live their lives, until those choices infringe upon the rights of others. We tell our children that they are free to love whomever they want to, but when that person walks into our lives, are we prepared to live with that choice? In past times, arranged marriages, same-race marriages and even child marriages were more accepted. Today, they are much less so. If we believe people are heading down the wrong path, we have the responsibility to tell them so, based on our beliefs. But nowhere do we have the right to call them names or condemn them. That is a line that democracy is not supposed to cross. Again, if their choices hurt others or curtail others’ rights, then we have a moral obligation to intervene. If you agree or disagree with Manny Pacquiao, that is your right. Choosing to vote him or not is, too. Reflect your approval or displeasure there if you wish.
In the end, if we truly believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful and loving God, then we know two things in the scope of our faith. One, each of us will face the Almighty personally and individually come judgement; nobody will be there to speak on our behalf. That is the nature of things: you live alone, you die alone. Everyone wants to look out for his neighbor, but none of us should impose our choices on others, that’s up to them., Secondly, if we believe that God can forgive all things, then any choice we make that does not define how kind we are towards other people won’t really matter. Does the God we believe in even need gender for anything?
