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?
9 dialectics:
That's why I don't make a big fuss about Comelec's rejection. Like what I've said in one of the blogs before. The future is us.
We can always afford to wait.
That is very shortsighted of you.
I'd like to ask if you are known within your circle as a homosexual/bisexual. If you are, have you ever been discriminated for it? And if you're not, is it because of fear that you will be discriminated?
Proper representation in Congress means that we become visible to public eye, and we can push the LGBT agenda even further with our presence.
I think nothing is more timely than getting a seat in the Congress now.
Perhaps because you are straight acting, you don't feel the discrimination as much. You haven't been asked to leave a restaurant because you are in a dress. I'd post longer but wala ako sa mood today.
@Evan. Homosexuality is defined by your sexual behavior of having sexual intercourse with the same sex. It is just a minute characteristic of your individuality. It does not define you. I would rather be known as a whole than by a part of a whole.
If you think that being homosexual is natural, then why should you treat yourself different from the anatomical male or female?
My argument in this post is the use of marginalization as justification to a congressional election. I never said that LGBT SHOULD NOT be represented in congress. My entry ended with a question. I would be glad if you could answer that.
May I ask how are you marginalized in our society? Can you enumerate them?
Thanks. BTW, "shortsighted" is a strong judgment. You should be very careful next time.
;)
@Friend. “You haven't been asked to leave a restaurant because you are in a dress.” It’s not discrimination I think brought about by your cross-dressing. It’s their houserules. Some establishments don’t allow men wearing sandos and slippers.
I'll expect your longer post. :)
For as long as they will allow others of different gender(i.e. not gay or lesby) to become a member of their party and the general platform is for the interest of the entire nation then I think it's okay.
-----sarda-----
It is natural, however, a lot of people do not perceive it as such, which results in discrimination of LGBTs.
Your argument diminishes this reality. It's like questioning what's the hype about Obama being black, or Hilary Clinton being female. The fact is, the long history of discrimination against the misunderstood and marginalized individuals should be enough reason that groups ensure that people will never be again mistreated solely because of sex and race.
And have you seen the party lists the Comelec has approved in the past? It puts in question the selection process involved in party list accreditation.
You also mentioned: "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." Exactly. Are gays and lesbians allowed to marry? No. Isn't that discrimination of one's basic right? Yes!
I stand by my statement: you are shortsighted. Your statement itself is a reinforcement of convoluted and outdated ideas of gender: "We are born either a man or a woman, not gay or lesbian, so why ask extra favors and privileges." We are born either a straight man/woman or gay man/woman. We are not asking for EXTRA favors nor privileges -- we are demanding equal rights.
:-)
@Evan. and I would stick with my argument that gays and lesbians are not marginalized members of the society. “Are gays and lesbians allowed to marry?” Yes, in the context that they can live together under one roof and perform the role of two partners loving one another. If you have a different concept of marriage, please qualify it here.
"We are born either a man or a woman, not gay or lesbian,..." and so u thought i am speaking of gender here? read again. isn't that "shortsighted" of you? ;)
“We are born either a straight man/woman or gay man/woman.” Would you please help me how would you distinguish a newly born child as straight or gay, and by the way, you missed the bisexual and transgendered.
:)
Let us not get carried away here. Last time I checked, we're still a democracy. Opinions, whether or not agreeable to our own, will always be inherently unique.
Thusly, the question of its legality can only be valuated by the yardstick of the law's definitions. By so doing, one will establish that marginalization is not something singular in our subculture. We find successful non-straights daily, both in media and in the workforce. They achieved such not because of getting proper representation, but rather out of sheer work and determination.
It would be discrediting their success and the good name they give to LGBT if we were to assume that they simply reached those by denying their sexuality or being in the down-low. Because it did not. That, would be a hasty generalization.
It's like saying Ba ack Obama won because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman. Wouldn't that be downplaying and undermining their hard-earned achievements.
Life is hard. And discrimination does exist. But in the same argument as gays should be represented in Congress for being 'generally perceived' as inferior and ridiculed, will that change people's perceptions?
Will representation make being gay an acceptable lifestyle overnight? No. What about the fat people, the short ones, the dark-skinned ones. All these, thus, should have their representation as well, using the same argument. But they don't.
Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege. Not everyone gets married.
Law is a function of ethos, and pathos will never be able to validate this. Being gay is only a part of who you are, let it not be the guiding force of your convictions. Because life is hard, whether or not your are gay.
Post a Comment