We are born either a man or a woman, not gay or lesbian, so why ask extra favors and privileges.

Once again, the Commission on Election rejected the bid for recognition and participation of the Ladlad Party to next year’s congressional race. One of the various reasons for the disapproval was that the claim of the party representative that gays and lesbians is a marginalize sector in the Philippine society is inconclusive or unacceptable. Is this a valid reason for denial?

I really do not have any idea how the Comelec validates and approves sectoral parties for an election but when I heard in the news that the commission rejected Ladlad’s candidacy due to unsupported claims of marginalization of the LGBT in the society, the first thing that comes to my mind is that the commissioner was somehow right.

My concept of marginal sectors of the society are those groups of individuals that have little or no access to social, political, economic, legal benefits and privileges. These are the people with disabilities, the youth, the elderly, the uneducated, the prisoners, etc. Gays and lesbians are not marginal members of the society. They could access all kinds of jobs, education, leisure, etc. They all have equal rights with the rest of the members of the society. Gays and lesbians are in fact still men and women. They are in the House of Congress.

I think using marginalization as a justification to a congressional seat is a poor one. The Comelec must have qualifying criteria how to become a valid Party List. Ladlad could have just accomplished this and do not aggrandize or dramatize its participation. If it lacks qualification, why bother participating in the election? In fact, do they really need representation?

Let us welcome the people who come in our stead but let us not keep them for they have their own goals to meet.

People come and go. They come into our lives and then leave us. They are our friends, relatives, lovers, and complete strangers that somehow at one particular time or another made marks in our life. They come and go and we are just transit points until one or some of them would realize that they have reached their final destination, but until then, we could only play hosts, and they, our guests.

People have expectations to their hosts but meeting them is no guarantee that they would stay because naturally, man is insatiable. They want more. They wanted a niche in the world, which they can call their own and control it. What they do not know is that it is highly difficult or even impossible to make a possession over something especially if that something is a person.

People can only host other people. When someone knocks on our doors, we let them enter and treat them as guests. We provide food and bed for them. We entertain them; we make them as if they are part of our household. However, if they wish to leave, there is nothing left to do but to let them leave. We have not anything to hold them, and so we could only wish for their return and if they could not, then we can only hope for their safety and happiness.

People are not objects. They have feelings. They have their minds. We may be able to confine them but we could never take over them. People will opt leaving because they thought they are in the wrong path to their own goals. Let them be. It is a selfish thing to keep people for our own self. Let them find their ways to reach for their own goals. We can never possess someone who wants to be free.

Our helping hand could not extend more than our reach if we could not first secure our own survival.

There is no question about priorities when we are facing life-threatening situations. We would always choose our life first before others because practically and realistically speaking, how can we save others if we could not even help ourselves. Even our instinct would drive us to the survival ladder without thinking of the people unrelated to us. We want to live. We want to prolong our existence. After all, survival is self-preservation.

You need to build up your own character because you cannot inherit the character of your ancestors.

The candidacy of Nonoy Aquino in the presidential race of 2010 is predictable. From the statement released by his celebrity sister during the funeral of their mom and former-president of the republic the intention is very clear, and no one just could disagree less that this is the best opportune time for him to run for the highest office to take advantage of the “yellow fever” outbreak that the death has unleashed.

There is a potential for Noynoy to win the presidential race considering the names of his parents are like halos above his head. Winning the election however does not always translates to good leadership. He may have the name propelling him to the presidency but he has not defined a character potential of a leader. His is a weaker one compared to his predecessors. If he is to become a president, he has to build a character he could claim his own.

---

Each individual may develop a character uniquely his. From the way he dresses to the manner he solves a practical problem, he would want to create a mark that is truly his. It is a kind of signature, a brand. Without character, he would be just any other else: unforgettable, insignificant, and uninteresting.

Character is something that makes a man. It is not a role. A politician is a role. A strong-willed, unconventional politician is a character. A husband is a “role”, not a character, but a drunk, wife-battering husband is. In short, a character defines a role. It defines “the man”.

One does not inherit his character. If you have a strong-willed, unconventional, drunk, and wife-battering father, it does not mean that you would turn like him. You can be a politician and say that you inherit it from your father, but it is a role. It is just a position in the society. Character is the one you build from scratch as you gain experience and learn from it. One would also inherit his ancestors’ name and enjoy the status it bears, but it is also just a name. It cannot transform you into the character of the previous holder.

Our character makes us unique. The problem is when we know a character and we like it, we tend to emulate it. We start to forget who we are and what we can become. In addition, our names also pose a hindrance in developing our own character. There are expectations attached to them that force us to conform. As a result, we are just a copy of another character.

Having a character of our own makes us memorable. It is something that could make a difference. Capitalizing on a name to establish one’s character is a sign of weakness and lack of maturity.

People are getting so interdependent on each other that sometimes they are starting to become unmindful parasites and unwilling hosts.

We are social beings. We are very social that we would always like to associate ourselves with someone or with some group. We would gather enough friends so that we would not be alone whenever we would like to engage in our activities. We join a clique, a society, or any other social groups for reasons of security and acceptance. We even marry because we wanted a partner in our lifetime. In short, we would always want to be part of something or someone.

Being social, we are afraid that there is no one who would confirm our existence, which is the main reason why we would want to cling and hold on to someone. We would do everything to please and be please to the point that we are already disregarding, consciously or unconsciously, another’s freedom of choice. Sometimes we are already too much involved that we are afraid to lose or depart from the attachment and in effect losing our independence and capacity to sustain ourselves.

We are human beings, highly intelligent and naturally adaptable yet our fear of being alone force us to forget our efficiency to stand alone and survive. Is this fear something that we could not live without?