2 Hot 4 8List: 8 Questions I Always Get Asked About Marriage Equality

.:2 Hot 4 8List: 8 Questions I Always Get Asked About Marriage Equality:.

I try my best to be a moderate when it comes to my personal opinions. Most people know what they are, but I try my best not to be combative about them when I encounter someone who doesn't share the same opinion as I. This blog post will not be as charitable, because I've allowed a lot of people to get in their myopic jabs on the topic for long enough. This hopefully addresses most of those so-called issues they raise.

Here now are 8 questions I always get asked about marriage equality, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling that recognizes LGBT marriage to be on the same legal footing as heterosexual marriage.

8. Why are the LGBT redefining marriage? 

First of all, marriage has been redefined so many times over the centuries that it's not even funny anymore. The idea that marriage is a union of love has been a fairly recent idea. There isn't really a "traditional" marriage, to begin with. Otherwise, all rape survivors will be required to marry their aggressor, just as the Bible stated.

In its current form, aside from the idea of one person loving another person for the rest of their life, marriage is understood to also come with concurrent rights. These rights are the crux of what marriage equality advocates are fighting for. It's something under the domain of the government, and in the case of the Philippines and America, the government is supposedly a secular one. What this means is simple: defining marriage as "biblical marriage," while not only problematic because of how the Bible itself defines marriage, also alienates the people who are not subscribers to the Bible.

TL;DR - marriage can stay the same for your church, but the government, in the interest of equal rights for all, needs to reassess marriage in order to live up to this secular ideal.

7. Why are the LGBT forcing people to bake them wedding cakes? How is this equality?

Oh. You mean that story in America of how a gay couple sued a bakery for refusing to bake them a cake for their wedding, then subsequently got awarded over $100,000 in damages afterwards?

First of all, you might not have read the entire story: this bakery didn't just "politely" decline this couple, they also doxxed (that is, they released the identity and private information) of these people when they complained about being refused service. People gloss over this fact, yet when you realize that the doxxing caused them anguish (they were given death threats) and extended that anguish to their adopted kids (they were also given death threats), suddenly, it doesn't seem like the bakery was fined nearly enough for what they did.

There's nothing "polite" about calling people an "abomination," okay? This is every bit as manipulative as saying that the old lady who sued McDonald's over their coffee was being frivolous (she received 3rd degree burns, not just some booboo someone can kiss to go away).

Also, remember how big a deal it was when people would refuse service to black people? Well, why would it suddenly be okay to refuse service to gay people just because? Are they not entitled to the same rights as black people in the first place?

Nobody was demanding this bakery to get gay married or to preside over the gay marriage of a couple that they already did business with before, prior to finding out about their orientation. That's plain discrimination, and it boggles the mind how people could think that discrimination is okay just because you claim that your God told you so. "God" has "told" people to do the Crusades. "Allah" has "told" extremists to fly a couple of planes into the World Trade Center. None of this was cool. A "lesser" offense hung on the same conceit isn't, either.

6. Why am I being called a bigot for not sharing the same opinion about LGBT marriage? My freedom of speech is being impinged!

First of all, when someone calls you a bigot, they are also exercising their free speech. We see a lot of people confused with that all the time, including certain bloggers who block people who call them out on their hypocrisy when they start cyber-lynching someone.

Still applicable, huh?

Secondly, let's get one thing straight here: your freedom to say whatever you want doesn't mean you are going to be free from consequences. If you lose your job because you went on a racist tirade, I'm sorry, but that's the consequence of you exercising your freedom of speech. Just ask Hulk Hogan, even if I feel bad for the guy.

To be fair, he's too orange to be a white supremacist.

If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. The only thing freedom of speech entails is that you won't be arrested by the government for saying whatever, although in the Philippines, we don't even have that level of freedom, since libel is a criminal offense here. Just ask Fashion Pulis.

Don't confuse our Philippine laws with American laws. This isn't an argument about tradition but legality.

Lastly, when you call someone an "abomination," do you even think being a "bigot" is remotely comparable to what you just called an LGBT person? Learn to check your privilege before you make these kinds of complaints, because you're working from the assumption that nothing is wrong with insulting the very being of an LGBT person by calling them an "abomination" all because your "God" "told" you so.

5. So does this mean I can't believe that God doesn't approve of LGBT marriage anymore?

Of course not! You're free to keep believing this, the same way some people still believe that slavery, or women's suffrage, or interracial marriage are all horrible things God would shun, too.

What you can't do, though, is to conflate your religious beliefs with the legal demand for equal rights for everyone, including LGBT people, to marry the one they love, who just so happen to have the same genitals as they do.

Godwinned!

Your church can continue to never marry LGBT couples to each other, but if the government decides marriage equality is a thing, you can't pretend that the law has to conform to your religion, because it doesn't work that way.

4. Why does this matter so much to you if you're straight?

Well, wow. I didn't realize that empathy is a bad thing now! Do I even need to dignify this question with an answer?

3. Aren't you afraid of Sodom and Gomorrah happening to us if we let marriage equality happen?

No. No, I'm not afraid of Sodom and Gomorrah, because Canada has had marriage equality for a decade now, and they're doing pretty okay. And why does your God turn into the hellfire and brimstone version only when it comes to gay marriage, but He's all loving and kind and benevolent and forgiving when it's little crimes like murder or rape or plunder? That's mighty selective, don't you think?

You also might want to read up on why Sodom and Gomorrah was actually condemned in the first place. You might be surprised how little it had to do with homosexuality.

2. So what next? We can now do polygamy? Incest? Bestiality? Marry kids off to pedophiles?

Well, that escalated quickly. It's very clear that the premise of marriage equality is that two consenting adults decide to spend the rest of their lives with each other. All three of these words are integral to the definition of marriage equality. Animals can't legally give consent. Kids are obviously not adults and can't legally give consent, either. Consent is fuzzy when there are power dynamics in play with blood relatives, such as mother vs son, etc. In polygamous situations, the transfer of rights is ridiculously complicated, but if the law were able to dynamically adapt, then so long as all parties involved are consenting, why should it be legally disallowed?

Some Muslims already marry multiple women, as it stands. The reason that marriage equality advocates aren't particularly happy about this is that it's clear that the male is dominant in this setup, and as such, implies there's little "equality" to be expected in the first place.

Ultimately, when two gay people marry each other, how would this affect you? It doesn't. So let them mind their own business as you mind yours. Nobody is forcing you to get married to the same gender.

1.If the LGBT are asking for tolerance, why can't they tolerate people who don't want to tolerate them? Shouldn't they give it before they ask for it?

Tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating, and accomplishes nothing. It also reeks of privilege, because here, we demand the LGBT kowtow to our feelings while we refuse to give even a semblance of respect to theirs. The LGBT are fighting for equality. If we can legally marry the one we love, why can't they? If we can stay in the ICU with our spouse as they lay there in critical condition, why can't they? The law is the great equalizer that levels the playing field for when there is an inherent disadvantage for a marginalized class.

This is why it's so ludicrous to wonder why straight people don't have any "straight pride" parades,  because they don't need one. Nobody is oppressing them systematically for being straight. It's also why nobody is particularly impressed when Tim Tebow professes his Christianity. This is the norm. This is the default. How is this a shocker? When people tell him to "keep it to himself," does it ever stop him from professing his faith? Of course not. It doesn't even stop him from continuing to express his beliefs in public, because freedom of speech allows him to keep doing it, just as much as his critics are enabled by the very same freedom.

Not pictured: a fair comparison.

On the other hand, when you see someone like Caitlyn Jenner come out as a transgendered woman (who is still very much into women, by the way), you will see people praise her because it takes guts to do that, and let's not pretend she didn't get any negative backlash for it. She certainly did.

It's all about false equivalence, and privilege. When you have the luxury of living your life normally without people condemning you for the religion you happen to belong to and for the sexual orientation you happen to possess, it becomes difficult to see why it takes courage when someone who doesn't subscribe to the norm has to come forward and express themselves.

In short, Christians, you are not the persecuted class in this story. I understand how nice it is to pretend you're the underdog, but between a bunch of people who get called "abominations" with regularity, and a bunch of people who have to stretch the definition of "oppression" to claim it, I think it's easy to see who's really being persecuted. You're Floyd Mayweather. You're John Cena. You're the '96-'98 Chicago Bulls. Any backlash you get is because people know you're going to win in the end, and there's nothing wrong with that: you're just being who you are.

When the dust has settled, marriage equality doesn't affect you if you have zero plans of getting married to someone of the same gender. So why should it be any of your business if the government, the one that's supposed to protect everyone, and not just you, eventually decides that gay people are deserving of the equal rights they should have gotten in the first place?

You don't get to debate human rights, because they're just that: human rights.

And in the end, in all this hoopla about the "dignity" of marriage, there is yet another oppressed minority being pushed to the side...

What about us single people? Are we not deserving of "dignity," too? Alas, that is a discussion to be had some other day.

Project 52 (32/52): On Tolerance (And Why Intolerance Shouldn't Be Met With It)

.:Project 52 (32/52): On Tolerance (And Why Intolerance Shouldn't Be Met With It):.

What. A. Dick.

I wanted to talk about Anna Banana and how she broke Derek Lorenzo's heart today, but instead, maybe I'll save that for some other time. I know this is all some not-really-viral thing PLDT has cooked up, but really, I feel for the kid.

Anyways, onto more timely things, seeing as we have discussion on the RH Bill, marriage equality, and yes, chicken. For a brief moment, we could have added that "Anti-God Bill" into the melting pot as well, and today's topic would have fit it, too. At every single point, when the militant liberals were calling out the behavior of the conservatives, the one and only point the conservatives would always harp on would be "one-way tolerance." Whatever that means.

See, what most people don't get about tolerance is that it, harkening back to my earlier post, is all about Walang Basagan Ng Trip. If two dudes of legal age want to marry each other, I say let them. If a woman who doesn't have money due to her economic status wants access to these newfangled condoms and pills CGMA has more than enough money to have access to, I say let them. These are simple and basic rights that should be afforded to everyone, and not just to people who have the money for it, or have the procreating combination of gonads for it.

And yes, I am neither gay nor sexually active, so that does underscore what I mean about "tolerance," not that I even disagree with these issues. While Chino Liao may joke that this reflects "hypocrisy" on my part, I think the more appropriate term would be "empathy." Not every cause I support needs to have a direct effect on my life.

In any case, I have been less concerned about not hurting the opposition's feelings lately, even if I don't count myself as a militant when it comes to these issues. I guess it's because over time, I realized that their feelings aren't really that important in the bigger scheme of things. The feeling they get isn't even a feeling of oppression, but simply a tinge of guilt that they misinterpret as oppression. I think they don't understand the meaning of the word when they use it.

You see, the doctrine of tolerance simply states that people can agree to disagree and in doing so, nobody gets hurt. For example, I like Shakey's. On the other hand, this friend of mine likes Pizza Hut. We agree to disagree, and every now and then, I will tolerate my friend and eat at Pizza Hut even if my preference is clearly for Shakey's. That's tolerance, since both choices are equally valid and my choice does not in any way affect her choice.

However, when you demand that pro-gay people tolerate anti-gay people, that relationship does not have the same implication. For pro-gay people to tolerate anti-gay people in the way anti-gay people want them to, they are being expected to be perfectly cool with anti-gay people stripping them of basic rights that anti-gay, presumably straight (Though not all the time.) people already enjoy.

So no, don't expect them to tolerate your intolerance, because your intolerance makes basag their trip (Did I really just write that? I apologize!), while you tolerating who they are in no way affects you at all. You don't turn gay hanging out with them, you don't have to campaign for their causes, and you definitely don't have to marry another dude, either. Tolerating them means you live as you normally would, and you let them live as they normally should. Tolerating you, on the other hand, requires them to tolerate being treated like second-class citizens, and no, there is no reason to tolerate that.

I especially like it when these people claim that they are being "censored" and their "free speech" is being impinged upon when they are clearly whining about the things that they already dislike, anyway. What they don't like is the fact that saying these unfair and discriminatory things actually has consequences, like, getting called out on it. People actually have to be responsible for the things they say? Who knew, right?

This whole thing about the RH Bill has also devolved into a very ironic group of people, specifically, the CBCP, whining that corruption, not population, is the issue. In church. By dragging kids and using them to make their point, as if they haven't used altar boys enough already. And then, they have Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is totally anything but corrupt, champion their cause.

So now, you have a bunch of people who collectively own the fourth largest BPI bank account in the Philippines, a default of goodwill and deference they feel entitled to, and having people say "hey, maybe their privilege to shove things down our throats shouldn't extend beyond their scope of power," and these rich, privileged, more than empowered, entrenched, and not even elected leaders claim they are being oppressed?

I remember the time Christians were actually oppressed. They were being martyred for their beliefs. They were being drawn and quartered and forced to renounce their faith. Nobody's forcing the CBCP to stop telling people to not have sex until they're married. In fact, in the general sense of tolerance, their intolerance is tolerated. They get to say it out loud, don't they? What they don't get, though, is that when people call them out for the idiotic things they have to say, that isn't a show of intolerance, but simply a consequence of them exercising their right to free speech, and their opposition exercising theirs.

Compare that to poor people who want to plan their families, but have neither the knowledge nor the money to. Well, guess what? The RH Bill addresses that. They can now make that choice, or they can adhere to what the church teaches, since hey, they made that choice after knowing what their options are.

In the end, that's all there is to it, really. Tolerance means that you allow people to live their life the way they want to, even if you don't like how they live. What it doesn't mean is that you do so at the expense of you living your life the way you want to. That's no longer tolerance, after all: that's plain martyrdom, except the Catholic church won't be canonizing you for it this time.