Imbak para sa CBCP

CBCP disowns Arguelles

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Nobyembre 29, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Two days ago I wrote an inflammatory comeback to wordpress about Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles for telling people to vote for political candidates who were “true christians” and kick out candidates who wnet “against” the teachings of the church. An example of a religious leader attempting to control freedom to vote towards a religious agenda by using his influence and guilt tripping anyone who takes him seriously.

Unfortunately a lot of people take the words of an Archbishop seriously. Fortunately smarter heads prevailed (although it really doesn’t take much to be smarter than this guy). Senator and lawmakers (probably sensing the threat to their own seats of power) rebuked him for his statement and denied that there was any such thing as a Catholic block vote, most prominent of these was Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Most of them reminding him of the constitutional provision of separation of church and state as I have stated previously.

Arguelles remained adamant saying that the responsibility of remaining separate was the states alone. Stating the example that the only thing that the constitution provides is that the state cannot impose any test of religion to those seeking office. Which is true, if we were talking about the American Constitution. Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution (and anybody correct me if I’m wrong here) merely says “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” That’s it.

And smarter heads seem to still remain within the CBCP as CBCP president and Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma (a man I’m not particularly fond of) effectively disowned Arguelles saying “it’s up to the people to make their own decisions” which is how it’s supposed to be.

The only thing I have with this statement is that he followed it up, in attempt to salvage some of Arguelles’ dignity, by laying the blame on the reporter “The paper misinterpreted the statement of one of our bishops in CBCP… there is a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter.”

Oh yeah, when in doubt blame the media. Nobody misinterpreted anything. We all saw and heard what he said. He was stupid and he said something even more stupid, end of story.


Getting Back on the Wagon

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , on Nobyembre 26, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

I haven’t written anything in the last three months and I didn’t even notice. My time has been stocked with nothing but reading books and cases; activities of the frat; quality time with my girlfriend; and just trying to keep up with the daily news. I haven’t even thought of exercising and have the growing gut to prove it.

So, this is an attempt to try and get back on the writing wagon and hopefully display some of whatever talent I had squandered by neglecting to hone it for so long, and I can’t think of a better way to get back to what I love doing the most than by systematically bashing a stupid move, statement, or policy by a status quo institution like the government or the church (whichever commits one first) and the big winner is *ding* *ding* no other than the backward moaning of self-righteous prelates out to revert whatever social advances mankind has achieved back to the middle ages.

Was that too harsh? Ok, maybe not the middle ages but definitely colonial Spain. Don’t believe me. Then let’s discuss a recent little thing that has propelled modern society into a system of better governance and acceptance for the general populace of the world but an otherwise nasty thorn for established religion more specifically the Catholic Church, the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a vague concept to many and very few really understand what it means, even those few have a hard time trying to explain it to those who don’t. The idea was first introduced at the birth of the United States of America during the signing of the Declaration of Independence by a faction of founding fathers most notably Thomas Jefferson. Solidified in the provision that stated no religious test be required for the holding of office.

The separation of church and state came about as a practical divergence from the way of government of the Empire of Great Britain because the founding fathers saw how a system wherein a religion integrated into government could easily corrupt. Pretty easy to understand if you consider that the Catholic government system is basically authoritarian in nature.

The writers of the Malolos Constitution realized this as well when they decided to use the same policy when we liberated ourselves from Spain (another country with considerable theocratic influence). So what does this all mean? So many questions. Does it mean the church has absolutely no say in government policy? Will public officials be forced to leave their faith at the door? etc.

No and no. The church, like all parties in a democracy has a say in the government process. Also we cannot expect people to simply discard what they consider as their values when making decisions concerning government. So where does the separation actually take place? Where is the line drawn?

Many people bemoan the constant nagging of the Catholic Church concerning the RH bill and the supposed moral issues it conflicts with. However (and I can’t believe I’m actually saying this), what they’re doing does not violate the separation of church and state. Yes they have made a very strong oppository stance to a proposed bill. They have that right. Yes they have campaigned and protested against it, also their right. They’ve even spread a lot of misconceptions about the bill and a lot of misinformation about the science around it. No matter how amoral, under-handed and dirty as it may sound it is also their right to do so and does not violate the separation. In such cases it is up to each of us to sift through all the information and (based on the science) identify which is true and which is false.

We cannot fault politicians who make decisions based on their values. We can only assume that they are only doing what they think is right.

The church has (rather unknowingly) toed the line between acceptable behavior given their complicated relationship with government and policy making, that is until now. In a rather nasty turn of events the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP) actually told people who to vote for.

“If there is a candidate who does not follow Church teachings, we should reject this candidate. We must use the Catholic vote and show them what the real Catholic is. There are fake Catholics here, they are the ones ruling in our country,”

This is the most bare-faced, hair-brained piece of filth I have seen in a long time. Archbishop Ramon Arguelles’ brains must consist of complete horse shit still warm from the beasts ass crack! The only reason I can think of for him to say something so inebriated is that idiocy was bred straight into his DNA. He is basically saying that anyone who even dare challenge the church should be kicked out of office and replaced with those who would cow-tow to their every word.

And if any of you were wondering, yes this is a violation of separation of church and state. The man (and the CBCP) are spitting on the seeds of democracy. Our government was founded on the idea that its leaders would be decided by the choice of the individual, not that individuals parish priest. No one and I mean  no one  has the right to order people who to vote for, especially not the church.


Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , on Abril 21, 2012 by Blue Dela Kanluran

1) What is reproductive health? The UN defines reproductive health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. It states that people have the right to a “satisfying and safe sex life.” The conjugal union is natural and proper in marriage, but in contrast, reproductive health disposes all people, including children and adolescents, to the sexual act and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to reproduce, provided that these are not against the law. (UN Cairo Conference, Program of Action).

Following this definition, if having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this causes will negatively affect the person’s mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind UN agencies’ insistence that reproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion.

Furthermore, the Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, or from having satisfying and safe sex. This item, along with the fact that certain contraceptives actually cause the abortion of 5-day old babies, is often ignored in supposedly unbiased and scientific surveys on the acceptability of the Reproductive Health bill. All these are in the name of reproductive health and rights. What about the rights of parents? And the rights of the unborn?

The answer to the first question is always the most important one because its the one that should address that basic premises of any discussion. It feeds the discussion with rudimentary whats and whos that need to be satisfied in order for anything to go forward. The CBCP Faq however fails at this by misrepresenting the stand of its opponent in the most obvious way in that the provisions they are opposing no longer exist. This is a question that has already been dealt with a year before at the  very latest. The arguments raised here are against RH Bill 5043, the current form of the RH Bill (the one everyone’s talking about) is RH Bill 4422. 5043 was four versions old a year ago and thus, most if not all of the provisions opposed in this particular (and probably most important) question were already deleted. No one for example will be forced to use contraceptives, and no one will definitely be imprisoned or fined if they decide not to let fifth graders use condoms. In fact, I’m not sure even if 5043 itself ever allowed such vivid scenarios. The CBCP is aware of this fact and even have a different set of faq’s for 4422. I have no idea therefore, why this erroneous answer, with the capacity to greatly misinform, is still kept up in the main FAQ.

2) What is the difference between procreation and reproduction? Reproduction is the process by which living things replicate, to assure the continuity of their species. It is necessary for the species, but not for the individual. Reproduction, as in the case of plants and animals, does not require any bond between persons. On the other hand, procreation is the proper term for human generation as it refers to a loving act between spouses which prepares for a possible creation by God of a new person. Procreation points to a collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life. None of these characteristics of human procreation may be found in plant and animal reproduction. The conjugal act is like a language with two meanings: the unitive and the procreative. Through their union in the conjugal act, a man and a woman give themselves totally to each other in and through their bodies. They are telling each other: “I give myself totally to you, and I love and accept you totally; we are one flesh.” That is the unitive meaning. Furthermore, the structures and functions of the male and female reproductive systems are such that when a sexual act is performed, there is a possibility of new life to be formed. This gives a procreative meaning to the sexual union. Thus, to accept each other totally includes saying, “since I love and accept you totally as you are, including your bodily functions, I also totally accept the possibility of our love bearing fruit, the gift of a new child.” Thus, the unitive and the procreative meanings of the sexual act cannot be separated from each other. Textbooks consistently using the term “reproduction” instead of “procreation,” even if intended for Catholic schools, should be thoroughly checked for the contraceptive mentality. They may confuse the students on the Church’s clear teaching on family and life. Presenting the views of dissenting theologians as being on equal authority with Church documents would bring about such confusion.

This is an outright lie. No dictionary, encyclopedia or internet translator would ever differentiate the definitions of reproduction and procreation to such a vast degree that the two seem to be on completely different levels. Reproduction is procreation, they mean the same thing. The sexual act does not require any kind of bond or supernatural intervention in creating life for it to be called procreation. Likewise there is no difference between the siring of animals and humans on any level.

This is another fallacy that misdirects all later arguments.

Words are a tricky thing. They have different meanings for different people such that sometimes a single word can have a dozen varying meanings, and one meaning can have a dozen varying words to express it. Which is why we have definitions to  nail down meanings as firmly as we can to avoid as much as confusions as possible. However, due to the wisdom that we are of limited knowledge we grant ourselves some leeway in the defining of words so that we can change certain definitions if and when new knowledge arises that conflict or challenge our previous definitions of a concept.

For example the original definition of the word ape in 1828 is drastically different from the modern definition because of the new information we now possess brought forth by study and research This does not occur in the case of reproduction and procreation. No new knowledge ever arose that would suffice the differentiation of definition of the words reproduction and procreation. They still mean the same thing. What this FAQ is perpetrating is a complete invention that is not only wrong but completely malicious. In the way that they have twisted the definition of a term crucial to the discussion in order to forward their agenda by resorting to a fallacious and unnecessary appeal to emotion.

3) Why is contraception morally wrong? Contraception is any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception. In contraception, it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” In short, contraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Since many contraceptives have also been shown by medical science to have various ill effects, their use could signify further contradictions and lies. It endangers then the physical well-being of the wife as well as the spiritual health of the marriage.

Speaking of partial and conditional love, isn’t it exactly the same as promising someone eternal paradise on the condition that they dedicate their lives in worshipping him and damn them to eternal hell fire with everyone else who won’t?  

4) Why are natural methods of birth control not contraception? The natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile. It is scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non-procreative decision by the spouses. In this case couples do not do anything to prevent the normal consequences of the marital act from taking place. Rather, they make use of the wife’s God-given cycle in their decision whether to have another child or not for the time being.

This question tandems with #3. After reading the answer the question then remains unanswered. What makes the calendar method different from contraception? All the elements that the CBCP are rallying against in question number 3 are still present here in number 4. The conscious decision whether or not a couple wants to have a child suddenly doesn’t mean “I love you as long as we do not give birth”. This is what’s called a blatant double standard.

5) In defending family and life, do we Catholics not impose our beliefs on others and violate the principles of tolerance and dialogue? Many Protestants, believers of other religions, and even non-believers share our belief in the dignity and value of human life. Tolerance means respect for the right of other persons to profess a different opinion and belief. However, tolerance cannot be understood as believing that other peoples’ points of view are equally good as one’s own, since this would blur the lines between good and evil and renounce the judgment of a sound and well-informed conscience. In fact, publicly proclaiming one’s own beliefs is a service for dialogue, because through this way others can know exactly what and how one thinks. One offers one’s thoughts for reflection to others while respecting their beliefs, but without assuming that all beliefs are equally valid*. Attempts to enact legislation promoting anti-family programs receive huge financial assistance and provide alluring incentives to persuade our politicians to commit themselves to their advocacy. Foreign-funded lobby groups have been operating for more than a decade to openly advocate for the enactment of population control laws, as well as abortion-friendly laws in pursuit of the UN Cairo Conference objective of universal abortion rights. It makes one wonder why countries with below replacement fertility rates, desperate for babies and spending huge sums of money to encourage their own citizens to bear more children, contradict themselves by spending huge sums of money to suppress our population growth. All these are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interest” which identified the increase in world population as inimical to the interest of West. This document has been coming out in recent public debates on reproductive health policies, and is available on the internet. Do not reproductive health advocates bow down to their impositions? Is it not more correct to say that they are the ones imposing their policies on our country?

It is true that while freedom of speech allows everyone to have ideas and the right to voice them out and be heard it is also true that there are certain opinions that have less value than others. For example the opinion that the Earth is flat has no validity against the opinion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (Ignoring the fact that a round earth is not an opinion. This example was chosen because there is a small section of people who still hold to a Flat Earth, as it is so ludicrous it is therefore the best contraction to demonstrate the point). I agree with the CBCP on this point however disagree on their assumption of what qualifies one opinion to be greater than another. The Catholic Church (as well as other religions) state quite clearly that not all opinions are valid ones and basically make the differentiation that whatever contradicts their opinion is the invalid one as it blurs the line between good and evil. How convenient then that they have tasked themselves to referee which is good and which is evil.

The way any normal person should weigh the validity of opinions is through evidence. Going back to the example on the opinions of flat-earth and spherical earth. Both are supported somewhat by evidence. Flat-earth is supported by perception evidence while Spherical-Earth is supported by astronomy, physics and engineering. Just as hard science out weighs observational perception so too should positions whose claims are supported by the best evidence hold greater value than the one that merely holds on to simple basal assertion of authority in governing right and wrong.

All of this ofcourse go off course at a lenghty discussion about foreign pressure to pass somethin like the RH Bill because doing so imposes on our political policies. Funny, since most if the policies adapted by the CBCP are fashioned after orders from the Vatican, but all this is beside the point and is irrelevant.

The only thing to remember is no, your not intolerant for voicing your opinion or belief regarding family or life (however, please refrain from doing so if the person you’re talking has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear it) but, if you expect anyone else to respect or even adopt that view you need something more substantial than God said so to back it up.

We should discriminate against gays

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Disyembre 8, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The Senate has recently passed on third reading the bill which is after penalizing all forms of discrimination including discrimination against homosexuals. Sounds good right? Wrong! At least according to the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP).

According to their lawyer Ronald Reyes the institution had no problem with the bill which was against racial profiling and religious intolerance but became “concerned” when Senators made an amendment to include sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity.

“This is alarming and it might change our society,” Reyes said.

Another CBCP lawyer Jo Imbong said the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender) should not be considered the same as the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor.

“These people are disadvantaged not by their own choice. But the third sex, they choose this. How can you give protection to a choice like that?” Imbong said.

If you feel a sinking feeling of disgust and apprehension don’t worry it’s a normal reaction when faced by malevolent primordial slime left behind by an age long gone and should be happily forgotten.

This underscores the very real  situation out country faces on the topic of discrimination. We have to face the reality that even with the countrys so-called Christian morality of loving each others neighbor the Philippines is practically no different from the barbaric tribes still surviving in the jungles of Africa and the deserts of the Middle East.

In those worlds, rights are a fantasy with less substance than smoke, and if we don’t protect everyone then the concepts of rights, freedom, and equality are nothing but colossal jokes adults tell themselves to make them feel better.

Maybe they should re-phrase that to Love whoever we approve of and to hell with everyone else.

Being gay doesn’t delegate one into becoming a second-class citizen devoid of protection from discrimination which is their right, whether they chose it or not does not enter into the equation. The spirit of the anti-discrimination bill is precisely that. To respect your existence as a human being who is no greater and no lesser than anyone else. Man or woman, CEO or beggar, cripple or athlete. No one has any right to deny you rights or opportunities based on who you are or what you believe as long as it does not disturb the safety and welfare of the public.

Their main objections however are if penalties against discrimination are enacted it will open the way for homosexual marriages. And their right, it could lead to that, but that’s a whole different ball game. They aren’t valid grounds to support discrimination.

More and more the CBCP are showing how bigoted and narrow-minded their world view is behind the kindly facade they so desperately try to cling to in order to gain immunity from public scrutiny and rebuke. But the more they fight the world on how it decides to respect its people the more they show how ill fit they are for this world.

Are homosexuals oppressed in Philippine society? And is the RH bill a front for their agenda?

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Nobyembre 25, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

A couple of days ago I came across an article linking the RH Bill with a quote “agenda to forward homosexuality”. Needless to say this made me raise an eyebrow because I read through the thing and even posted the latest version I could find somewhere on here in an earlier post and in nowhere in any of those pages did I find anything pertaining even remotely on homosexuality.

So I checked for the source and found the original (or the one closest to it as far as I can tell) in And after reading through it I can safely say its the most paranoid, unfounded pieces of narcotic induced dribble that ever found its way on the internet. The line of thinking that came into this speech can go on par with the 9/11 truthers who insist that the US government was behind the attacks on the Twin towers, or the people who believe a secret organization is working behind the scenes to bring about a New World Order.

In fact all the points made  were so delusionary that it reminds me of a guy that practically screamed the scrapping of the RH Bill because “it violates our constitutional rights” when every single one of the provisions he was against was already discarded many moths before he made his proclamation.

Okay a little background; the article was written based on a presentation by Dr. Ligaya Anacta Acosta regional director of Human Life International (HLI) Asia and Oceania. She worked for the DOH for 28 years, A Doctorate in Management, and Bachelor Degrees in Law and Social Work.

First she tackled the question of “are homosexuals really oppressed?”

“Are they really oppressed? We see many gays in the media… in fact, they lord it over [in the industry] so how can they say that they are being oppressed?”

Ok, I know there are a lot of gays in the media but lording over it is a bit of a stretch if we’re talking about statistics.

We need to stress that what Dr. Acosta probably means by media is entertainment, because I’m hard put to find any easily identifiable character who is openly homosexual on the grid of news or journalism. Which spans the regions of television, radio, and print. The only exception I can think off the top of my head would be Boy Abunda and even he would stretching it because he’s classified in entertainment as well.

Filipino entertainment thrives on three things: (1) romantic movies, soap operas and dramas (which, unless I’m very mistaken, is unsuitable for homosexual performers); (2) Noon time variety shows; and (3) Talk shows. Even in the last two categories homosexual personalities are scant and easily outnumbered by their straight peers. The only way gays have ever made it into the entertainment industry is through comedy and only through comedy (the only exceptions being Aiza Seguerra and Boy Abunda).

(Note: In this vein I’ve limited the discussion to tv personalities or persons easily recognizable. I have not included individuals who, though in the entertainment industry, work behind the scenes such as directors, cameramen, producers etc.)

Though all may agree that homosexuals are a colorful (and very loud) presence in entertainment (not media), the statement lording it over even there is a bit hard to swallow…statistically. However, the point stands, so what? There are gays in the media (entertainment). Does that automatically conclude for all arguments that no anti-gay sentiments exist in the Philippines? Of course not.

“But we have to understand that this is actually a Marxist mold to cast the homosexual revolution, which started as early as 1948,”

“A man named Harry Hay thought of the idea of a homosexual activist group, later formulating the principles that would give rise to the US-based group “Mattachine Society” as the first members would call it. The principles revolved around the concept “that homosexuals were a virtual minority oppressed by the dominant heterosexual majority, and that portraying them as oppressed is actually the key to selling the homosexual movement,”

(I really have no interest in Harry Hay since his ideologies and movements have little effect on societies half way around the globe years after his death and four decades after his society shut itself down). But here Acosta has a point, just because you’re the minority doesn’t mean you’re oppressed.

Since the current American president Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States has made strides in the advancement of anti-life, anti-family legislation, including recognition of same-sex unions and discrimination against people who refuse to recognize such unions. Being true to the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights monicker given to him, the president has established an LGBT Month (LGBT stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders), appointed homosexuals as key officials in government, and carried out other measures that have ended up bestowing illegitimate rights on homosexual members of society.

Illegitimate rights? What, are they allowed to murder people now? What is she talking about? Surely not marriage because that’s hardly illegitimate at all.

“Sasabihin siguro ng iba, sa US lang ‘yan,”

“Hindi lang po ‘yan sa US because the policies of the United States of America affect the whole world… It’s actually also part of population control. If they cannot force us to legalize abortion or massively use contraception, then [they] promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Start at kindergarten… and therefore we have to know what is the agenda.”

Really? Promoting homosexuality in kindergarten? I can’t speak for myself but there might be a lot of schools that would consider that slander.

“Not too many people know that the RH bill also encourages homosexuality,”

I definitely didn’t. But we’re finally getting to it. Let’s see how a bill written for health could possibly forward some sort of agenda for homosexuality.

“Section 2, the Declaration of Policy, states that “The State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of universal basic human rights to reproductive health by all persons.”

Don’t see a problem with that.

“And then it says, ‘There shall be no discrimination against any person on the grounds’ “among others” ‘…of sexual orientation.’ You have to understand the doublespeak here. And of course, it refers to homosexuality\,”

No discrimination? Sounds reasonable enough. Don’t see a problem here either.

“It also says here, ‘The State guarantee to eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on the person’s exercise of reproductive health rights.”

Eradicating discriminatory practices? That sounds good too. Don’t see a problem with this one either.

“Further, “gender equality” is defined in Section 4 (Definition of Terms) as “absence of discrimination, on the basis of a person’s sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Sounds about right. Aaaaand that’s about it. Apparently “don’t discriminate against homosexuals” means “everyone be gay”. Wow. A really powerful case they got here. How could I possibly defend such an incredible flaw. Really? This is the proof of a secret plot to forward homosexuality? How deluded  does anyone have to be to go from point A to point 431 in one go?

Oh wait, there’s more.

“Though media mileage may give the impression that a significant number of Filipinos exhibit homosexual behavior, it is actually the systematic implementation of an agenda by a small number of people that gives the illusion of huge numbers.

“I have to tell you that there is a huge homosexual network all over the world, and although constituting a minority only of less than 3% of the population, we have to know that the homosexual movement is highly organized and very well-financed,”

What? Wait a minute. A moment ago she was arguing that homosexuals were portraying themselves as an oppressed minority to forward an agenda and now she’s saying that the homosexuals are a minority but puts up the illusion of majority numbers to forward their movement? Which is it? Are they trying to make themselves look like a minority or a majority? You can’t even keep your own story straight.

“And it is international in scope, which is why they have international associations. They are also very anti-Catholic… and so with various organizations they have been influencing media, education and even religion. Here in the Philippines, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the work of which is to influence politics and legislation, to build a powerful political movement, and they are actually succeeding a little in that area,”

Woah, alot of loaded statements here. Anti-Catholic and influencing media, education, religion influence politics and legislation. This is the part of the discussion where I’ll be a little skeptical and ask for some backing to her claims and I’ll reserve comment until such appears.

“The Human Rights Campaign is their political action committee to help elect homosexual congressional candidates and those favorable to their agenda,”

Anyone, correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t that what every other political party wants? To have candidates favorable to their agenda elected.

I’ll add a couple of paragraphs from the article itself to wrap this whole thing up. Notice the choice of words here.

Amid tackling more issues regarding unfortunate consequences of homosexual activity and predisposing factors of leading to homosexuality, the pro-life advocate explained the need to spread the life-affirming message against the backdrop of the push for homosexual rights.

“Our goal in presenting to you the homosexual agenda is not really to incite hatred for those persons who suffer homosexual inclinations nor even against the gay activitists. It is to alert the public about the campaign to promote homosexual practice, and to call people — especially us in the Catholic Church — in all sectors to make a firm and appropriate response and address different approaches available to men and women of homosexual inclination who wish to leave… the life of active homosexuality.”

She reminded everyone that healing can be and has been found after living a homosexual lifestyle, and that “every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Returning to the question “Are gays oppressed?” it is amusing to see a woman who at first sought to disprove this ended up demonstrating to the letter. People (or a certain group) are qualified to call themselves oppressed when certain rights are denied them. When the right to be free from discrimination is considered as a negative, that in itself is discrimination, that is oppression.

No it seems Dr. Acosta is seeing fangs in flowers on this one. The agenda she claims to exist and the evidence she puts forward are completely non-existent. And the fact that anyone actually listened to this (much less take it seriously) is utterly laughable. Maybe she should try going into entertainment.

Valentine≠sex (?)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay, Neurotics with tags , , , , , on Pebrero 10, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The day that every guy dreads is upon us and all around the world mattress springs will be groaning under the weight of two or more bodies pistoning against each other.

But the interesting part (surprisingly) is what’s happening outside the motel rooms (at least for now).

The Department of Health announced that it will not be repeating the campaign it did last year when they gave free condoms to couples on Valentines Day to protect potential cases of HIV and AIDS infections. It’s only to be expected that the irritable ire of the church was drawn to it as they described the stunt as “vulgar and gross”. Despite sounding like a pretentious teenage girl the Church has a right as an institution to voice its stand on issues and profess their thoughts on how to go about dealing with said issues.

So, the DOH listened to them and are opting for a more “wholesome” approach to raising awareness on safe sex.

All things considered it’s not like much is actually happening. So why even blog about this? I didn’t really have a gripe with the DOH not giving out condoms this year because of pressure from the church (I can buy my own. Although honestly it would have been highly appreciated if it were offered to me) but what really got me thinking was a post by a friend on facebook who linked the news story on her profile page and left a comment.

“Finally they realize that they were promoting something immoral. Valentine’s does not equal sex”

It’s my staunch policy in life to air what grievances I have with a person to the person him/herself. But in this case I’ve made an exception. Why? Two reasons. One, she’ll kill me. Two, when her time comes and she dies as well, she’ll visit me in hell and kill me again.

Now that we’ve got that double standard out of the way let’s consider the above mentioned quote.

When exactly did sex (more specifically sex between couples) become immoral? This analogy brought to you by the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines that state: by giving away free condoms was a way of enticing young people to be experimental and promiscuous.

Ok, I can understand where the Bishops are coming from on this one but I don’t get why everyone else is in such an uproar about it. Going back to Valentines Day, it is celebrated as day for love specifically romantic love (the one for couples and lovers). One thing “conservatives” have to realize is that sex casual or procreational is absolutely essential for the proliferation of love.

Couples have sex when they love each other. That’s a given. And it’s also love’s final rite of expression. If two people have sex it is almost understood that they love each other.

One can have sex without love but one cannot have love without sex. It is a widely acknowledged phenomena that a (romantic) relationship starts to go south once couples stop having sex. So, as an integral part of love which is celebrated on the 14th it could be argued that to a certain extent Valentines does equal sex.

So it’s completely callous of the church to demand abstinence for couples on Valentines Day of all days.

Again, I’m talking about sex between couples here. Not casual or professional sex. I’m a supporter of those too but they can be talked about for another time.

Therefore, I am encouraging all couples old and new to celebrate their love for one another by rolling in the hay, making the two-backed beast, nailing the tube, rocking the floorboards, mining for oil, entering the tunnel, and launching the rocket. All of this protected or otherwise.  Because what’s a lifetime of hard labor in raising a dozen children for 30 minutes of fun without a condom.