Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Ang Ladlad was nodded (part 2)

First my disclaimers:

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not homophobic in the strictest sense of the word (I don’t have an irrational fear for homosexuals or gays). I’ve worked in two schools (aside being a volunteer in a Christian school), one public high school and one college. In that public high school, I have one bisexual coworker in the department that I belonged. In that school, I have 3 other gay co-teachers. In college, I have two gay co-faculty members. They themselves can attest that I have been respectful to them the way I’m respectful with other faculty members and administrators. I’ve always been in good terms with gay people. After all, contrary to the popular belief, not all Baptist churches make fun of LGBTs, especially in their short comedy sketches. In our own church and Christian, it is a no-no to make jokes regarding gay people. No, not because they’re gay, but because they’re human beings. Bluntly, I’m not pro-gay, but I’m pro-God, pro-family, and pro-humanity. In other words, I respect them not for being gay, but because they’re human beings.

Now, let’s continue:

“It stressed that Ang Ladlad has satisfied all legal requirements to qualify as a party-list organization under Republic Act 7941 (Party-list System Act), including ‘proofs of past subordination or discrimination suffered by the group, immutable or distinguishing characteristic, attribute or experience that define them as a discrete group, and present political or economic powerlessness.’”

That’s an excerpt from this article. Now, let’s focus on the words discrete group, political and economic powerlessness.

Discrete group – I do believe that there are LGBTs who are discrete. In graduate school, I know gay graduate professors who dress in a corporate fashion, not in a loud, glam look. Yes, they even excel (one of them is my favorite professor by the way). In fact, I never saw any gay graduate professors in our University who dress loud. This shows their being discrete. Patricia Evangelista in one of her articles implied that the host of “The Explainer” Manolo Quezon is gay. He wore corporate outfits every show. He’s discrete. My point? There are gays that are discrete, there are gays that are not.
Political powerlessness – I don’t know if there’s any study correlating homosexuality and politics (some of you may find it funny), but personally, being gay doesn’t equate political powerlessness.

Economic powerlessness – I disagree. More often than not, you’ll see a working gay, be it in parlors, comedy bars, entertainment, schools, offices. Yes, some may say that they do that because if they don’t have money, they’ll not get guys or gals (in case of female bisexuals and lesbians), but the point is that an unemployed gay is a rarity. Thus, LGBTs are not economically powerless. Okay, let’s make this a notch higher. Maybe some will say that gays have no economic influence on stock markets (I don’t know), now here’s the thing: I am a straight guy, and I don’t have any shares of stocks. This

These are only my opinions. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a mathematician. I’m not a political analysts or political scientists. I’m just a blogger. I do believe that there are stronger opinions than I have. They may even back it up with book smarts. Still though, this is only my opinion. You can attest my political correctness on this one, especially on LGBTs. At the end, we have no choice but to respect the Supreme Court’s decision. However, in the spirit of democracy, I will not vote for Ang Ladlad. I respected them in the way I can, please respect my choice. As a Christian Baptist, my reason is obvious.

No comments: