So, yeah, the gay thing. Philippine Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago makes a big deal about former Senator and Philippine National Police Chief Panfilo ‘Ping’ Lacson’s sexual orientation seemingly to save her ass which had been included in a list of alleged crooks. On the other side of the planet, there is on-going chatter about upcoming NFL star Michael Sam’s caught-on-video gay kiss after getting drafted by the St Louis Rams.
The popular responses to both are emotional and predictable. Homosexuality after all is a big deal as it is one of the primary currencies for polarising society into progressives and primitivists.
Of course, the real issue underlying homosexuality (or gender and sexuality in general) is the objective worth of an individual to humanity — the merit he or she brings to the table regardless. Was Ping Lacson a good senator and police chief? Will Sam perform or choke in the NFL? My colleague Gogs summarises the real deal surrounding these matters brilliantly…
Like any work place, your potential employers want to know what you will bring to the table. Sam plays on the defensive line same as Jadeveon Clowney who was picked first overall by the Houston Texans. With all his talent, he was still dissected for potential red flags like not going all out all the time. That is what football people do before they commit their selection and millions of dollars to 22 year olds. You can compare the NFL draft sometimes to the stock market where there are the blue chips, the speculative stocks and the emerging markets. The problem with this analogy is unlike the NFL in 2014 there is no such thing as a stock coming out as gay before the opening bell.
All that said, I can’t pretend to be a big fan of male homosexuality for the simple reason that I’d rather not harbour an overly graphic picture in my mind of what male homosexuals do with their partners between the sheets. But I respect homosexuals as people and being such — i.e., people — I believe they are entitled to all the rights that people in a modern society enjoy. Some of them also make very good friends. That does not mean, however, that the reality of our biological or physiological nature should be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. To do so misses the whole point of what it means to respect — and embrace — one another’s unique characters and preferences. Respecting individuals is not the same as pretending that differences between genders and character variations across the range of sexual orientation and preferences do not exist.
Personally, the idea of engaging in a sexual act with another male is deeply revolting to me in much the same way as I am repulsed by the idea of having sex with my mother or sister. That’s my psyche and physiology talking — the complex interplay of the way my brain is wired, my internal body chemistry, and the attitudes I was raised with makes me heterosexual in orientation and non-incestuous by nature. Thus, I cannot help how I feel about male homosexual acts in much the same way that homosexuals cannot help how they feel about heterosexual acts.
According to the latest science, this “orientation” traces its roots to our genetic makeup and is presumably heritable to some extent. The dominance of heterosexual orientation is likely an outcome of evolution that ensures that we propagate the species by mating with the opposite gender of our species and that we ensure robust genetic diversity by not mating with close relatives.
As such, as a parent, I can relate with this heart-felt lament…
Among progressives like myself, a lot of infighting occurred this week over the issue of Michael Sam gay kissing his nameless boyfriend – a white man who looks like a terrified silent film star – on cable television. Despite the obvious issue of yet another white man being represented in the media (gross and bad) there’s the problem of whether or not being gay has gone too far.
As the original racist Donald (Trump) pointed out, Michael Sam seems to be applauded for his homosexuality whereas [NFL Quarterback] Tim Tebow was derided and mocked for his Christianity. There’s a clear double standard here, and that double standard is worrying and problematic. Why is it okay for two men to love each other, but it’s not okay for a man to love an invisible man who will return one day to kill all of the men who love the wrong men? Would it have been better if Tebow held up a picture of Jesus and kissed it passionately, rubbed its crotch, and whispered sweet nothings into its ear? Should Tebow have hired a male stripper to play Jesus and sucked him off while reading the bible? Are there pictures of that kind of stuff online? Where can I download them?
I wonder then, if this whole gay “activism” thing has gone too far. See, everyone has the right to smack their lips while eating their lunch on their workstations. But that does not mean I have to like it. Gunning for gay rights is nice. But does homosexuality have to be pushed into our living rooms for our kids to see? Raising kids is hard enough without confusing images like these. I heard that many Sesame Street sketches made in the 1970s were deemed no longer fit for public television, like videos of kids crawling into pipes while playing in a junkyard or Cookie Monster explaining poetry while smoking a pipe. We wouldn’t like giving our young impressionable kids the wrong ideas too early in life now, do we?
But a gay NFL player kissing his boyfriend on TV? Perfectly ok according to our society’s most “progressive” minds!
Like most red-blooded heterosexual fathers, I wouldn’t want my son to turn out gay. But if he does, I will respect that outcome and love him just as unconditionally as I do now. Many fathers have reduced their love for their kids for a lot less serious stuff — like becoming a musician rather than a lawyer, or failing to win a seat in Congress to ensure the on-going security of the family jewels.
Parents have only so much time to mold their kids’ minds. And these timeframes are tight. By six or seven, I read, the window to instill basic disciplines (an ability to mitigate a desire for instant gratification, for example) closes. By age 14, hormones trump kids’ primal fear of parental wrath. By 18 they are capable of leaving home (at least in societies where parents do not regard their kids as property). To leave ourselves at the mercy of “activists” who come out of a few days reading Richard Dawkins thinking they know better is just plain foolish.
It’s time we just focus on the important stuff and get a grip.
- Noynoy Aquino lauded for merely showing up at Congress inquiry on Dengvaxia - December 15, 2017
- Martial Law “debate”: Does the Constitution serve Filipinos? Or do Filipinos serve the Constitution? - December 13, 2017
- ‘Resibo Queen’ Jover Laurio represents the demise of free speech on social media - December 12, 2017
- ‘Human rights’ under fire due to Duterte critics’ destructive them-versus-us rhetoric - December 11, 2017
- Today is International Human Rights Day, but is “human rights” really an international thing? - December 10, 2017