The grand inquisitor

In the news: three members of TV network ABC-5 die in the line of duty. Everyone is sorry for ABC’s loss.

Garcillano lieutenants promoted.

Newbreak on military rebels that changed sides, and the political dexterity of Manuel Villar.

Palau prepared for border talks with Philippines.

In the punditocracy, my column is The grand inquisitor. A reader responded with this criticism, which I answered here.

Amando Doronila says ethical questions hounding congressmen won’t go away.

The Inquirer editorial condemns the New People’s Army for attacking the Army on Mayon Volcano.

The Business Mirror editorial says Philippine authorities have (typically) overreacted in response to the London terrorist bombing threat. Read Slate’s commentary on how even American authorities are confused and unclear about their own regulations for airlines.

Billy Esposo optimistically hopes Bolante’s cutting a deal to spill the beans.

Bong Austero on the perils of multiculturalism: how to enforce dress codes at work?

The Nation of Thailand points to Thaksin’s divide-and-conquer strategy. Sounds familiar.

In the blogosphere, Ricky Carandang takes a poke at a bigot. Other bloggers who also did: maharhar and Leaflens and salamangkiero. Also, Out of my mind.

RG Cruz ponders talk of the President’s being a dipsomaniac.

Iloilo City Boy: political quarrels over tourism pork. Peryodistang Pinay: gerrymandering revival in Cebu. a nagueño in the blogosphere on what dismantling Imperial Manila really requires. Istambay sa Mindanao on freak waves.

Coffee With Amee and Uniffors are both impressed by Patricia Evangelista’s Sunday column.

Another Hundred Years Hence begins what should be a highly thought-provoking analysis of the defects of Philippine democracy from a design perspective.

Other stuff: E. San Juan, Jr. on re-mapping the National Democratic imagination.

The Golden Apple Tale: it remains unsolved; the rumored author died, possibly taking the solution to his grave.

Raskln Center for Humane Interfaces attempting to develop the next big leap forward in computer interface design.

Colbert has fun with Wikipedia.

The Rapture Index: creepy stuff!

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

97 comments

4 pings

Skip to comment form

    • arikasikis on August 14, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    You wrote, “ridicule is a legitimate form of criticism, particularly of views that grant neither sincerity nor convinction to those upholding them.” I dont think that ridicule is a legitimate form of criticism. We have heard of that big nose of the Jews or jokes concerning the gypsies. It seems that ridiculing has always been an instrument of bigots. How about if the gay community is ridiculed? By ridiculing, a taste is promoted; and taste is normative. How could you pre-judge the sincerity? Could you judge sincerity through the choice of words or through facial expressions? I dont think so. A certain way of expressing an idea should not be used as a basis of judging the sincerity of a person in a multi-cultural nation as ours. Because these expressions are again normative. An idea has its own constitution; it is weak or strong irrespective to the messenger and only dependent on its message. Rosseau may have given his children for adoption, but that should not be used in criticising his notions on education. Ideas should be attacked only with ideas; ideas should not attacked by taste.

    You also wrote, “look at the blanket condemnations made by those who push for charter change to the extent that they will grant neither sincerity nor conviction to those who oppose them, and you’ll see why i ridicule them.” I can understand it in as much that it reveals your prejudice to a certain “taste” (to a certain way of expressing things). But I dont think that your ridiculing promotes clarity to the subject.

  1. This is not to defend former Justice Isagani Cruz. But let’s look at his opinions on the gay community from the perspective of the values of his time — probably way back 60-70 years ago. We should not immediately condemn the man simply because of our modern concept of homosexual tolerance. Try asking your 80-year old grandparents and maybe you will be surprised at how deeply conservative they are with respect to sexual preference for members of the same sex. I tried asking my 84-year old father and he practically has the same opinion as Isagani Cruz. If I understood it right, even the Holy Scriptures prohibit homosexuality. Now, is God also a bigot?

    Of course, I disagree with Mr. Cruz’ opinion on this matter but let’s not immediately condemn the man. His learned opinions on various SC decisions far outweigh whatever mistake the man may have committed in lashing out at members of the so-called “third” sex.

    • antonio walanglaban on August 14, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    forgive me for my utter stupidity if I read his article wrong, but is MLQ3 gay?

    • blech on August 14, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Bystander, Mr. Isagani Cruz is a columnist of a supposedly reputable news organization, and your father is not (unless he is employed by CNN or BBC). His opinion reaches people all over the world, your father’s opinion doesn’t. It is not just about homosexuality, but of bigotry and intolerance. And I am truly saddened that Inquirer even allowed such backward thinking come out of their newspaper

    • vic on August 14, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Opinions are opinions, but there are times that some of our opinions are better keep for ourselves. There is one simple test, especially for those whose medium of opinion is widely dissiminated, to pass before considering going along and share them with others. It is going to create hatred toward the intended group? Is the benefits of opinion proportional with the harm or lesser than it might cause? We must remember that many a tragic events had resulted because of some peoples’ opinion that could have been better left where it started, in the head of its creator.

    • neil on August 14, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Hmm, yes Antonio he is! But even if he isn’t, I can totally understand how that got MLQ3 so incensed. Disparate opinion I can accept but Cruz’s diatribe was just plain and simple bigotry.

    • mlq3 on August 14, 2006 at 2:28 pm
      Author

    antonio, i am.

    arikasikis, i’d point you to rizal and his writings on the indolence of the filipinos, the noli and the fili, and the writings of the other propagandists, which make what i write look tame by comparison.

    satire is a legitimate kind of writing, and using satire in political discourse is about as old as political writing itself; as is attacking someone who attacks you. an attack and counter-attack certainly clarifies things -where you stand, and how you justify your stand. otherwise, you abandon the field to those who wouldn’t hesitate to use a weapon against you: knowing full well what the words aim to achieve, you must hurl them back.

    bystander, the man condemns me, i will condemn him for advocating in society what he objects to politically: a slavish obedience to whatever the powers that be demand.

    he is as good a man as anyone from his generation, and i don’t advocate forcing him to change his but also, i won’t change mine. left reasonably alone, both of us could probably focus on other things and agree to disagree, and i’d not foist my views on him -but if we wants to call for a counter-cultural push, then pushing back has to be done, otherwise both he and i would be where he’s happy and i’m not.

  2. I get your point blech and I perfectly understand and sympathize with MLQ3. And right you are in saying that my father’s opinion is unlike the far-reaching effects Mr. Cruz’ opinions. I was merely trying to point out that people (although not all) of Isagani Cruz’ age and upbringing practically have different sets of values than most of us born 60 to 70 years later. But don’t get me wrong blech, while I respect Mr. Cruz’ opinion as part of free speech, I totally disagree with him in this regard.

    As to PDI allowing this column of Cruz to be published, it only shows that the newspaper is respecting the right of others to say what he wants to say as long as the same is not libelous. It is part of free speech in a supposedly democratic country like the Philippines.

  3. Mr. Cruz’s arguments based on his preferences and apparent intolerance to change don’t have legs to stand on. But if he used the Bible based argument (as mentioned by the bystander), at least he’s got something more solid to stand on.

    • mlq3 on August 14, 2006 at 3:04 pm
      Author

    i disagree with some who have criticized justice cruz and demand he be fired by pdi. he has every right to say what he wants, and everyone can write angry rebuttals, but if he got fired for saying something, then everyone could demand everyone else be fired simply if they got angry enough. so it might cause some joy to get cruz fired, but where would it stop?

    as it is, if cruz sees how others oppose his views, he might reconsider or better yet, attempt a sincere dialogue. but if he were to be hounded from column writing, then what’s to prevent others from being hounded, too.

  4. MLQ3, I didn’t know about your being gay until this reaction of yours against Cruz’ column. And I admire you for coming to the defense of people with whom you share your identity with.

    But like I said, the man is — rightly or wrongly –conservative (or a bigot if that is how you and others regard him). His octogenarian brain cells probably has not accepted the fact that homosexuals are now a force to reckon with in society contrary to the values that influenced his thinking of gays in the 1930s. Be that as it may, should we totally condemn the man simply because he was utterly wrong in his low regard for homosexuals? The next question that should be asked is: Did he do anything other than this columns of his to show his disgust for gays during his time as a public servant then? Since he was a former Supreme Court Justice, were his decisions biased against gays? If the answer is yes, then probably the man is a bigot and should be outrightly condemned.

  5. Mr. Quezon, thank you for that scathing indictment against the intolerance glorified by Isagani A. Cruz’s column. As I read it last saturday, I could practically taste the blood I spilled back in elementary by the torment of bullies.

    It is not fair that people cite age and generation gap to sanction what I see as a hate speech. One of the comments here said that his 84-year old father shares the same sentiments.

    I have an 83-year old grandfather and his son, my uncle, is a transgendered individual. I was actually afraid for my uncle till I saw that my grandfather saw him and hugged him and praised how beautiful his son is. People have no idea of that feeling to be accepted for who you are. I was relieved to think I am his supposedly favorite grandson, and I am gay.

    Sure, this is a democracy, but a columnist has a responsibilty. You do not parade your disdain for the “pansies” and wave a foreboding finger that we might cause the nation’s downfall.

    Like I said, we never cited the presidents’, past and present, heterosexuality for causing so much economic and political tailspins.

  6. isagani cruz’ views bespeak of his age: an era wherein he doesn’t accept change and would rather live in a world he wants to see.

    Malay natin, magbiro ang tadhana::::

    OK, mga anak daw niya, eh, “macho”….
    Eh sa third generation naman, mananatili kayang “macho” pa rin?
    Baka magkaroon ng mga apo si G. Cruz ng sangkaterbang gay, ano kaya ang gagawin niya? Magpapatiwakal?

    Just thinking…..

  7. Kleptoglue has promoted the garci team! ONLI IN DA PILIPINS
    where kleptos and fakes get away with their crimes….

  8. It is not fair that people cite age and generation gap to sanction what I see as a hate speech. One of the comments here said that his 84-year old father shares the same sentiments.

    Nasty Pen said this on August 14th, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Please examine closely what I said Nasty Pen. I was not justifying nor sanctioning Cruz or my father because they happened to share the same opinion. I was merely rationalizing that may be age and exposure to a different set of values had something to do with their seeming intolerance for gays. And I was not claiming that all 80-year olds are like that. Lucky for you that your grandpa is quite liberal in his values.

    Ironically, those who accuse Cruz of bigotry are doing the same thing — intolerant of other people’s opinions. Bigotry begets bigotry.

    • hvrds on August 14, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    It is amazing how fast terror news gets acted on but the reaction of the government here is amazing. Are people now not going to be allowed to carry their cell phones with their groceries aboard public transport? Let us look at the perspective of a Jewish economist to the latest terror threat in the U.K. The world of Geobbels is alive and well. Who the hell cares is Mr. Quezon is gay? The right to free speech is guaranteed to all. The column of Father Bernas was more important than the rantings of a homophobe.

    August 14, 2006
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Hoping for Fear
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.”

    The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?” demanded one angry correspondent.

    I wonder what he says to his son these days.

    We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.

    Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”

    Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the 2002 TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” There they go again.

    More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren’t ready to go — they hadn’t purchased airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports yet — British officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.

    Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John Kerry — and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a mole inside Al Qaeda.

    But whether or not there was something fishy about the timing of the latest terror announcement, there’s the question of whether the administration’s scare tactics will work. If current polls are any indication, Republicans are on the verge of losing control of at least one house of Congress. And “on every issue other than terrorism and homeland security,” says Newsweek about its latest poll, “the Dems win.” Can a last-minute effort to make a big splash on terror stave off electoral disaster?

    Many political analysts think it will. But even on terrorism, and even after the latest news, polls give Republicans at best a slight advantage. And Democrats are finally doing what they should have done long ago: calling foul on the administration’s attempt to take partisan advantage of the terrorist threat.

    It was significant both that President Bush felt obliged to defend himself against that accusation in his Saturday radio address, and that his standard defense — attacking a straw man by declaring that “there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face” — came off sounding so weak.

    Above all, many Americans now understand the extent to which Mr. Bush abused the trust the nation placed in him after 9/11. Americans no longer believe that he is someone who will keep them safe, as many did even in 2004; the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Iraq have seen to that.

    All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself.

    Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Automobiles
    * Back to Top

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

    http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=15077

  9. The Bystander, I don’t want to wrangle about bigotry because, I of all people, know how it is to be violently marginalized and to live as a label.

    I don’t know about you.

    Please check out what I said, too. Which part was I intolerant of other opinions? Did I say that Mr. Isagani A. Cruz should be crucified for his column? No. All I asked was an exercise of responsibilty on the part of Mr. Isagani Cruz.

    • blech on August 14, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    yes, just because we do not agree with mr. cruz’s opinion does it mean that he should not be allowed to do it. it is just unfortunate that his message is hatred masked in a supposedly professional column.

  10. Nasty Pen,

    Don’t feel alluded to by my statement because I never accused you of bigotry. That’s why I used “those”. But there are indeed comments elsewhere that show the same degree of intolerance for which they are precisely aghast about.

    Well, I am “straight” (as if gays were crooked). And even if I’m not gay, it’s not my forte to ridicule them because other than sexual preference, there’s practically not much difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. We all were created before the image and likeness of God and it’s not for me to judge a person based merely on his/her attachment to members of the same sex.

    Even if I disagree with Mr. Cruz, I will not as yet accuse him of bigotry.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 14, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    well, i guess Isagani Cruz’s homophobia is out of the closet. He is not afraid of Gloria Arroyo but he’s afraid of gays.

    Many of the biblical no-nos are found in the Old Testament, a mean-spirited book written by mean vindictive old men.

    The New Testament, Christ’s word, taught us to love all humanity. And for that He was crucified by followers of the Old Book.

  11. altho you don’t need this, mlq3, you just went up several notches in my book.

    especially when you disagreed with the knee-jerk reactions of some people calling for Cruz to be fired from his paper. I may not admire him for his opinion, but I also know how it is to espouse a position that is politically incorrect or (in Cruz’s case) just plain wrong.

    the one thing i love most about democracy is how it is best experienced in the face of opinions that grate on our sensibilities. if we were to remove that, if we were to become a nation of lemmings and sheep who can only think and opine alike, well that would be a sad day indeed.

    your defense of cruz’s right to write – and your championing of other people’s right to disagree just as vehemently – is something we can all learn from.

    mabuhay ka, manolo.

  12. Again, if I remember right, the prohibition on homosexual practices is found in the epistles of St. Paul in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament. But I guess much of the discussion here is based on non-religious tenets and principles. So let’s leave it at that.

    • antonio walanglaban on August 14, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    mlq3, salamat sa pagsagot mo sa aking katanungan, at salamat rin sa pagsagot mo kay cruz.

    neil, oo naman. I only asked because I truly didn’t know. but, gay or not, all people who’s minds don’t live in the stone age ought to be incensed at cruz’s macho bullshit.

    (where’s neil you need him?)

  13. I agree with ComelecAKO. I doff my hat to you, MLQ3. You’re one brave person; in fact, braver than all the “macho” sons of Justice Cruz combined.

    • Jeg on August 14, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    If I understood it right, even the Holy Scriptures prohibit homosexuality. Now, is God also a bigot?

    God isnt. But perhaps the fella who wrote that ‘prohibit homosexuality’ part is. I think youre talking about St. Paul. He also was a man of his time just like your father is.

    The New Testament, Christ’s word, taught us to love all humanity. And for that He was crucified by followers of the Old Book.

    If youre not careful, this could be misinterpreted as an attack on Judaism, mb. Christ himself was a follower of the Old Book, lest we forget.

  14. Jeg said this on August 14th, 2006 at 6:57 pm:

    God isnt. But perhaps the fella who wrote that ‘prohibit homosexuality’ part is. I think youre talking about St. Paul. He also was a man of his time just like your father is.

    Jeg, I’m not an expert at the Bible but do you mean to say that St. Paul was speaking only on his own and not from the wisdom of God? Are you now questioning the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God?

  15. But again, let’s leave the Bible as the basis for our discussion. My objections on Mr. Cruz’ article as well as the others are based purely on secular considerations.

    • cvj on August 14, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    Manolo, kudos on your forthrightness. It’s something that’s in short supply these days. I believe that today, you’ve moved the country forward a bit.

    If the Bible prohibits homosexuality, then it’s a reflection on the Bible and not the other way around.

    • mrabello on August 14, 2006 at 8:33 pm

    I always enjoyed Justice’s Cruz’s columns.

    The “gay apparel” piece was one lacking in foresight..

    He may be now lacking in tact and sensitivity in his old age.

    He should know at the very least that we are way past “the good old days” of his yesteryears.

    ..or then again, maybe he did intend on ruffling feathers.

    • Jeg on August 14, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    From bystander Jeg, I’m not an expert at the Bible but do you mean to say that St. Paul was speaking only on his own and not from the wisdom of God? Are you now questioning the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God?

    St Paul was speaking from how he understood God at the time, which by his own admission, is through a glass, darkly.

    • mrabello on August 14, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Quote cvj: “If the Bible prohibits homosexuality, then it’s a reflection on the Bible and not the other way around.”

    There is a specific scripture that lumps homosexuality along with other sins that every hetero engages in, like thievery, murder, coveteousness, drunkeness etc. so the new testament does cover it..

    but then it really is impossible for anyone who claims to follow Christ to measure up.

    It would also depend on how the bible, seen by some as an antiquated collection of fiction and fable, measures up peoples’ lives.

    • mrabello on August 14, 2006 at 9:25 pm

    sorry, that is.. how the bible measures up in peoples’ lives.

    • cvj on August 14, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    mrabello, unfortunately, 2000 years does not provide enough distance between our world today and this ‘antiquated collection of fiction and fable’. if humanity is to survive another 2000 years, we have to go beyond the morality prescribed by the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic belief systems based on divine revelation and redefine it in terms of values that are based on science, reason and the lessons of history.

    • Jeg on August 14, 2006 at 9:37 pm

    That’s putting too much faith on science, reason, and the lessons of history, cvj. If humanity is to survive another 2000 years, then Im betting on ‘Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.’Unscientific, unreasonable, and unhistoric (since as far as I can tell, it’s never been tried yet. 😉

    • mrabello on August 14, 2006 at 10:21 pm

    @cvj:

    you mean like no heaven..and no religion too..?

    sorry couldn’t resist.

    Seriously though, sounds like the dawn of a new “Golden Age”.

    • Edwin on August 14, 2006 at 10:26 pm

    Here’s what the old man said

    Lets look at the other part of the message

    The observations I will here make against homosexuals in general do not include the members of their group who have conducted themselves decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also for the gay population in general. A number of our local couturiers, to take but one example, are less than manly but they have behaved in a reserved and discreet manner unlike the vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized it. I offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.

    Sometimes we have to read the whole message to sink in. I am not defending Isagani Cruz but he did have his warning on his message. I take it as he also have gay friends.

  16. I agree with bystnder that it is not bigotry which made I.Cruz to write that article.

    It is just that he belongs to the old school with more conservative set of moral values. Someday when we grow older and see younger generations adhering to values which are also not openly accepted yet by the generations where we belong, we would have the same reaction. e.g. spouse swapping, legalized pedohpile practices..(some groups are already working on it).

    As I read the article repeatedly, I gathered that he is not against the gay community as a whole but only to those who make they gays look cheap and freak .

    Personally, I speak baditch lingo because I grew up with couturiers and how their vocabularies evolved. These people in the fashion industry who Cruz regarded as ones of the most behaved people in this third gender do not cheapen themselves appearing in the TV with outlandish costumes and theatrical make -ups. I agree with his observation regarding the gay directors who portray their (kabaros) as someone to laugh at.

    Here in the States, gays are conservative too. Except for gay parades where they dress or undress their best, you will find them “normal” and not unless they openly admit that they are gays, you will not find out since they do not flaunt the way SOME gays do it in the Philippines.San Francisco, the most liberal city for gays had invalidated the marriages conducted by Mayor Gavin Newsom for hundreds of couples because people here may be tolerant to sex-related issues but the recognition of marriage of couples of the same gender is not one of them.

    I’ve witnessed extreme bigotry here in the States, that result to mauling of some teenagers to death by the same group of their age. One of whom was a Filipino teenager whose lifestory was made into movie for TV.

    While sitcom scriptwriters and stand-up comedy gag writers are careful in writing funny lines that may offend the people belonging to this gender , in the Philippines, we make fun and ridicule them and nobody give a hoot.I. Crus is just stating facts.

    For me, Cruz’s article is about one of those generation gaps issues like when old folks frowned upon our parents’ Beatles noisy music and we perphaps to metal and rap of the younger generation today. Sabi nga” noong kapanahunan namin….

    • Edwin on August 14, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    [quote]mrabello, unfortunately, 2000 years does not provide enough distance between our world today and this ‘antiquated collection of fiction and fable’. if humanity is to survive another 2000 years, we have to go beyond the morality prescribed by the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic belief systems based on divine revelation and redefine it in terms of values that are based on science, reason and the lessons of history.
    [/quote]

    y0 Homosexuality existed 2000 years ago. The ancients condemned it. thats not saying that they are ignorants, bigots and stuff. I think what they are saying though is THEY HATE SODOMY, A MAN SUCKING ANOTHER MAN’S COCK and stuff. but they dont hate men wearing women’s dress. They dont hate gays but they just hate what gay people do to another gay.

    thats just my thought about the matter. Its ok to be a gay just dont do it infront of me.

  17. All of these comments on bigotry beg the question: How then, exactly, do you define bigotry? If this isn’t it, then what is?

    • Jeg on August 14, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    Yes it’s quite possible that old man Cruz’s rant was against bad taste and lack of decorum and not on homosexuality per se. He was just struggling with the language and therefore couldnt get his ideas across. The gay community in the Philippines has had a history of persecution and are therefore sensitive to anything that can be interpreted as an attack on ‘gayness’ itself. Im giving Justice Cruz the benefit of the doubt.

    That said, and risking scorn, personally I think a person shouldnt be defined by his or her sexual preference and this insistence on being defined by sexual preference, I find in bad taste. That goes for both gays and heteros. MLQ doesnt define himself as a gay columnist/news analyst/TV host. He’s simply a columnist/news analyst/TV host. I dont define myself as a hetero dork. Im just a dork. Sexual preference shouldnt be relevant to how we define ourselves as human beings. We’re just people. Not gay people, not straight people. Just people.

    • cvj on August 14, 2006 at 11:15 pm

    mrabello, something like that:-)

    Jeg, besides science, reason and history, what else have we got that is real? Those teachings of the Bible about love of God and neighbor are ok. (I also like the beatitudes.) Unfortunately, a lot of believers take the entire Book as a package deal, and within nuclear-capable USA, there seems to be special emphasis today on apocalyptic material of a type similar to the ‘Rapture Index’ above. The world has become too small for this dangerous nonsense. We cannot have the people of the Torah, Bible and Koran constantly slugging it out with their contradictory narratives. We have to come to our senses before it’s too late.

    • vic on August 14, 2006 at 11:24 pm

    Sexual orientation is now one among the groups (others are race, colour, sex, physical and mental disability, and age), that are included in tha Anti-Hate Law of Canada.

    The Law (Criminal Code) states that discussion, publication, and broadcasting of material or writing in any forms (movie, literature, novel) that promote hatred toward or among the groups is a criminal offense. Exemption maybe applied to if done in private, or in context of religious discussion. So if you’re in Canada, before speaking or writing your thoughts and views and opinions put them to test first.

    BTW, same sex marriage has now been recognized legally and accorded the same legal status and benefits as traditional marriage, which is between a man and a woman. And also the issue of sexual orientation is no longer an issue in this country. It was a divisive issue, but in the end, One Great Canadian once said ” The government has no business in th nation’s bedrooms. And with that a pleasant day to all..

    • jumper on August 15, 2006 at 7:57 am

    what is homosexuality? is it a state of mind? a belief? an idea? or is it a state of body, inseparable from the individual, like race? or physical attributes?

    if it is an idea, then i do not see anything wrong with disagreeing or rejecting homosexuality, in the sense that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with somebody’s beliefs, condemning somebody’s ideas as wrong, as long as you respect his right to believe in it, and you do not condemn the person along with his ideas.

    but if it is a state of body, inseparable from the individual as his race and physical attributes are, then that’s when things get dicey, for rejecting and condemning homosexuality means rejecting and condemning the person as well. i believe that there will never be a valid reason for condemning or rejecting a person because of his physical attribute.

    should homosexuals treat homosexuality as a state of mind or a state of person? when homosexuality is disagreed with, should homosexuals take it personally? or can they take it impersonally, if such a thing is possible? can homosexuality be condemned as an idea or a belief, without equating it with the homosexual person?

    i personally am leaning towards the former, that homosexuality is a state of mind, an idea, rather than a state of body. humans are either a male or a female, physically. there is no distinguishing physical attribute for gays or homosexuals. but there are many physical attributes that distinguish whether a person is a male or a female, such as his or her reproductive organs. is there any way to distinguish a homosexual physically? even if the homosexual were to undergo surgery to change his sex, he would just have changed his body into a female’s, even if he insists he’s a member of the “third sex”. the body is either male or female. hence, my position that homosexuality is a state of mind, rather than body.

    what did isagani cruz mean when he wrote his article? i do not think he was rejecting homosexuality as a state of body, because he stated that he approved of some of his gay or homosexual friends. i believe he also believes that homosexuality is an idea, and what he wrote was his disapproval of how certain homosexuals distort or corrupt the idea of homosexuality. i do not think it is wrong to reject wrong and distorted ideas of homosexuality, just as i find nothing wrong with condemning and rejecting distorted ideas of manhood, such as chauvinism.

    • sparks on August 15, 2006 at 8:08 am

    *Wooosh* Manuel whips it out and WAPOOOOW!!!

    You took the words right out of my mouth. For that piece alone, not knowing your politics, I’d vote you for president. Or I’d ask you to marry me. Too bad. Hehe.

    Not too long ago I remember he wrote something about the menace of the entertainment industry, the gall of them artistas running for public office. Yikes. Isagani Cruz must be going senile.

    • rego on August 15, 2006 at 8:24 am

    Edwin,

    here is what MLQ said about the point you raised….

    Retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz says that his vigorous and vicious condemnation of gays, lesbians and transgendered people is not supposed to incite hatred and intolerance—or to be precise, that he is not invoking a blanket condemnation of all gay people. He only objects to some, not all. For example, he has nothing but the most generous and respectful thoughts for those who conform to what he finds tasteful and tolerable behavior. And what is tasteful and tolerable as far as his wounded sensibilities are concerned? A minority meekly and absolutely surrendering to the tyranny of the majority, a sub-culture reduced to the subhuman, in which the individual is instructed to live out, every day, a total repudiation of the self. Cruz demands the elimination of a diverse and rich culture—one that is as much a mirror of society’s larger complexities as it is an alternative to some of the worst instincts and features of the broader culture for which he has stepped forward as spokesman—because the minority displeases and disgusts him.

    ———————————————————-

    Which is exactly my sentiments too!!! People just have no right to impose on anyone how he should behave….gays doesn’t impose on the straights on how they should behave, so why should the “straights” dictate to the gays….

    Mr Cruz essay may not be bigotry but it can promote hatred to gays who doesn’t behave exactly like what Mrs Cruz wanted it to be. And what right does Mr Cruz have to impose on gays on how they should behave….

    Yes, there are gays are protrayed as weird caricatures in TV and in Movie, But the same is true with straights too. e.g under the saya….

    I believe the bottom line is that, “please leave us alone”! They same way the we leave the straight do their own thing!!!

    • rego on August 15, 2006 at 8:44 am

    Jumper,

    State of mind, state of body to me its doesn’t matter at all. If you are straight you will never understands homosexuality at all the same way that homosexual will never understand straights completely. Or women will never understand men at all…

    Simpleng tanong OK so ano ba talaga ang message na pinpaabot ni Mr Cuz sa column nya na yun????

    • mrabello on August 15, 2006 at 8:55 am

    Former Justice Cruz belongs to an era described by Tom Brokaw as “The Greatest Generation”(yes ..the book)

    He is what he is.

    You can either let his piece get your blood boiling or dismiss it as the harmless musings of a man in his twilight biding his time at the departure area.

    Realistically, totally eradicating a mindset like Isagani Cruz’s is asking for the moon.

    The mindset may be seen as an anachronism to some or to many but such thought processes(values?) are inherited. And succeeding generations of new conservatives will run with that ball.

    Those who espouse liberal viewpoints and respect for alternative lifestyles will have to buckle down.

    The anti-discrimination bill sponsored by Risa Hontiveros Baraquel is a start.

  18. The ignorance displayed by jumper’s post is funny. It is a very common misconception (especially among Filipino heterosexuals) that gay people want to BE the gender opposite their own. So they think that gay men want to BE women and gay women want to BE men. That is completely off-base. Gay men are emotionally and sexually attracted to other men. That’s it. Gay women are emotionally and sexually attracted to other women. That’s it.

    People who feel that they were born into the wrong body are transgendered, not necessarily homosexual. They thing that everyone one needs to remember is that sexual orientation (who are you attracted to?) is totally separate from gender identity (do you think you’re a man or a woman?).

    As for this “state of mind” business… ha. Did you choose to be straight? Can you choose to be gay? Does your sexual orientation change with the wind? The answer to that is no. One can choose to adopt the behavior and practices of a particular sexuality but one cannot choose to BE a particular sexuality.

    As for that utterly stupid euphemism, “the third sex”… that REALLY should be laid to rest, because it has absolutely no descriptive value and just serves to confuse everyone.

    • jumper on August 15, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    fried-neurons,

    “The ignorance displayed by jumper’s post is funny. It is a very common misconception (especially among Filipino heterosexuals) that gay people want to BE the gender opposite their own. So they think that gay men want to BE women and gay women want to BE men. That is completely off-base.”

    did i say gay men want to be women? i wonder what the words “even if” mean to you.

    “As for this “state of mind” business… ha. Did you choose to be straight? Can you choose to be gay? Does your sexual orientation change with the wind? The answer to that is no. One can choose to adopt the behavior and practices of a particular sexuality but one cannot choose to BE a particular sexuality.”

    i am fully aware of the biological bases for homosexuality. i’m not saying that it is completely a state of mind.

    but the fact that you reject the term “third sex” means you somehow also lean towards homosexuality as a state of mind, because rejecting the existence of a third sex, you implicitly admit there are only 2 sexes.

    what i mean by “state of body” is within the context of gender. i lean towards homosexuality as a state of mind because there are no physical attributes that support the physical existence of the so-called “third sex”. therefore, i am in agreement with you in rejecting the term “third sex”, and that it has no descriptive value (for it describes nothing).

    while i lean towards homosexuality as a state of mind, i am in no way denying the biological bases for it. but i still think it is more mental than physical. there are biological bases for alzheimer’s and parkinson’s, as well as various personality types, and those that have them didn’t choose to have them. but they’re still classified as mental conditions rather than physical.

Load more

  1. […] Of course Manolo Quezon has this to say. […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.