The futility in outrage over Manny Pacquiao’s homophobia

615 Shares

The recent outrage over Manny Pacquiao’s statements about the LGBT community is just a media-covered exercise of something that every Pinoy—educated or otherwise—live with and even practice on a daily basis.

Pacquiao simply represents the groupthink of Filipinos. And, unfortunately, Filipinos are among the biggest anti-LGBT group of people in existence. Just take a walk and observe how most people treat and interact with homosexuals (especially gays) in a mundane, everyday setting and one can deduce that even in that aspect, Filipinos are still stuck in the dark ages.

manny_pacquiao_homophobia

Even the seemingly pro same-sex marriage “netizens” who proudly trumpet their support and wave their rainbow profile pictures in support (daw) of the movement are not exempt from hypocrisy as well. It’s not uncommon to see colleagues post their support for same-sex marriage and make fun of a cross-dresser over lunch. Note that these are college graduates working in international companies that have, and enforce equal opportunity to all people regardless of race, class, religion and sexual orientation.

“Equality for all” in social media on one hand, gibbering like hyenas with the barkada on account of some ill-dressed drag queen resembling Conan The Barbarian on the next. For some reason, that glaring dichotomy, along with a nasty predisposition to racist sentiments based on a person’s color or nationality, paints a disturbing picture that is in stark contrast to the supposed open-minded and liberal posturing of a lot of Filipinos in various social media platforms. The support has become nothing but a glib fashion statement lapped up by a lot of people for ‘likes’ and ‘RTs’.

It also does not help that the most prominent gays that are given a lot of media attention in the country are a) comedy reliefs b) comedy reliefs with a slightly elevated social class because of their wealth and c) comedy reliefs because of wanton disregard of people’s perceptions about their actions and self-image. It’s not that they don’t have rights to act the way they want, but in a place where it’s already an uphill battle for acceptance despite being an upright individual with a modicum of self-respect, you’d expect famous/media representatives to exert a bit more in terms of restraint and class. Of course when one says ‘transender’, does not necessarily mean just the male homosexual and lump it in that one category to make a generalization. But  it is undeniable that as far as popularity and media representation are concerned, the gays are still pretty much the more popular faces of the said movement. And that for every one Danton Remoto, there’s a hundred Vice Gandas.

But still, this is the Philippines we’re talking about. Where parents spoil their kids and still get surprised why the ungrateful brats don’t respect them when they grow up because they were given everything. Where religion and “morality” are given the most premium in selecting the politicians they elect, but balk when said politicians interpret the Bible in the same literal way they do. Where prominent gays capitalize on shock/slapstick comedy then complain when people cannot separate performance from reality. Where politicians are elected and re-elected simply because they’re famous in a field that has nothing to do at all with legislature. Where outrage fads are, well, simply fads that will be conveniently forgotten the moment a juicier topic for grandstanding presents itself.

The problem isn’t Pacquiao, despite his ignorant comments. The sooner people realize that, the faster we can get out of the rut we have so long been stuck in.

print

22 Comments on “The futility in outrage over Manny Pacquiao’s homophobia”

  1. Famous or not famous people have the same opinion as pacquiao so it is really pointless to be outraged over his opinion, lgbt community, hit this homophobes in an educated manner, i once saw a transgender giving alm to an old man in an overpass, imagine if the beggar is a homophobe, isnt it the best payback in your face possible.

  2. Sharing to all this write ” God’s Truth About Genger”

    God’s Truth About Gender
    CBN.com The age-old debate about the root causes of homosexuality is controversial to say the least. It raises the question, does God really create some people as homosexuals?
    In his new book God’s Truth about Gender, author and internist Dr. David E. James addresses this and many more difficult questions about the nature of gender—what it really means, how it shapes our identity, and how it expresses the character of God. “Contrary to what is frequently and erroneously stated in the media, there is no scientific or psychological proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavior pattern that manifests itself in certain individuals for a variety of reasons, including psychological, social, environmental, behavioral, and genetic predispositions working together to produce the homosexual person,” he states.
    This genetic predisposition is often cited by those who claim homosexuality falls within the spectrum of normal sexual behavior. After all, if it’s in the genes, isn’t it a part of who you are? Not so, says the doctor. “Contrary to gay propaganda, sexuality is not an identity. It is a behavioral term. Feelings do not give us our identities. There is an error in thinking that that how one feels determines what is justifiable behavior. “
    Drawing on both documented scientific research and spiritual truths, Dr. James helps readers develop an understanding of the causes behind homosexual behavior and the inner working of the homosexual or transgendered mind. More importantly, he shares on a very personal level concerning the road to healing from the wounds that cause sexual dysfunction.
    In the shifting sands of culture, a critical discussion of healthy gender roles and gender identities has often been declared off-limits. In God’s Truth about Gender,Dr. James presents readers the opportunity to become accurately informed on the issues that are reshaping our cultural landscape. He recently discussed the book.
    What does the Bible say about gender?
    God states, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…male and female, he created them” (Genesis 1:26,27 KJV). When God created people, gender was a basis for which we were to bear his likeness. Apart from the obvious differences in the physical nature of gender (man and woman), he also gave the concepts of spiritual gender—the way we feel and behave in response to stimuli—to correspond to the man and the woman he created. When we speak of the terms “masculinity” and “femininity,” we are referring to these feelings and behaviors. Men are expected to be masculine and women are expected to be feminine, though it is also possible for men and women to possess qualities characteristic of the opposite gender. However, their primary spiritual makeup will be in line with their physical gender. Because both men and women are relational beings created in his image, gender is a means through which God reflects his spiritual balance with more genders here on earth.
    In many circles, those who acknowledge the differences between men and women are accused of favoring one gender over the other. Is the notion of gender equality dependent on similarity?
    Different spiritual qualities come with each gender. Whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone knows there is an inherent difference between men and women. Besides the obvious physical differences, we think differently, learn differently, and are generally motivated by different ideas. These differences are spiritual, and they are based on the gender identity given to us by God—regardless of the lie being proclaimed in the world today that claims equality based on similarity. Viewing men and women as similar with regard to roles and purpose obscures the lines between genders and subsequently blurs our vision of God. The truth is, masculinity and femininity are the yin and yang of behavior. They are not morally constructed; therefore, neither nature can be better or worse than the other. In most scenarios, a balance of both natures is required.
    How would you respond to the prevailing cultural notion that equates hetero/homosexuality with a person’s identity? Were homosexuals “just born that way”?
    In reference to human beings, we find three areas that serve as the major factors of individual, personal identification. These are gender, race, and family. The “big three” personal identity factors are all immutable. And they all carry extreme emotional consequences for individuals suffering from crises in these areas. One cannot choose his gender, race, or family. On the other hand, sexuality is a generic term that describes our ability to behave sexually—without regard to the focus of our sexual desire.
    Although we do not choose our feelings, we do have willful control over our behavioral choices. Special interest groups claim that feelings and behaviors drive a person’s identity. This is a lie. Homosexuality is not an identity. It is a choice based on feelings. At any given time, a person may feel sexual emotions toward multiple objects of desire. These objects of desire may include gender personalities (male/female), self-arousal, inanimate objects, smells, visual stimuli, etc.
    Heterosexuality and homosexuality are personal choices each person makes with his or her sexual capabilities. Contrary to what is frequently and erroneously stated in the media, there is no scientific or psychological proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavior pattern that manifests itself in certain individuals for a variety of reasons, including psychological, social, environmental, behavioral, and genetic predispositions working together to produce the homosexual persona.
    According to your book, males who choose homosexual behavior and females who choose lesbian behavior do so for different reasons. Describe those reasons.
    The psychology of homosexuality is rooted in deficit. Homosexual males typically perceive an internal lack in reference to certain issues of spiritual masculinity. This lack drives them to unite with someone of the same gender in order to make up for the lack they unconsciously sense in themselves. Many homosexual men had fathers in the home who were physically present but spiritually absent, so a relational model of the spiritually male-associated identity was nonexistent. Homosexual males desire other men not for what they can give sacrificially in love. The desire is based upon what they get—that is, their lost manhood found in the physical image of another man.
    Lesbians are different from gay men. Their reparative drive is born out of a woman’s fear of harm from the male, for fear is common to the feminine mind. Many lesbians were abused sexually as children or experienced some form of masculine harm. A lesbian might even have witnessed her mother being physically abused by her father. The abuse may be verbal or emotional as well. Lesbians tend to be extremely anti-male in their stance and demeanor. This sentiment is born out of fear and anger. Lesbianism is more favorably characterized as avoidance of masculinity rather than a desire for femininity. In the end, masculinity is the driving spiritual power for both male homosexuality and lesbian sexuality. The difference is that male homosexuals seek it, while lesbians avoid it.

    Read more about this book.

    Purchase God’s Truth About Gender.

    More book excerpts and author interviews on CBN.com

    It is also good for the LGBT community to conduct some research about the effect of the technological advancement which the human have created and the negative consequences which resulted why there are so many LGBTs’, e.g. PCB’s used as transformer coolant which was found very effective for transformer cooling but later decided by the United nations to be stopped from its production worldwide as it affects the development of fetus during pregnancy which resulted to gays and lesbians after birth.

    For those who are against the statement of Manny Pacquiao which he compared animal to human, he already asked an apology “sorry” for the mistake he has made – this is the same as he is asking forgiveness for him to be forgiven by our God. It’s good to recognize and accept his apologies and stop issuing statements against him as he is a person like all of us who also committed sins and continuously asked forgiveness to our Lord Father God when we feel and realizes that we committed sins for we’re not created perfect in this world.

    God bless us all,
    Manny Paner

    1. You’re building an argument on a shaky assumption — the notion that a god “creates” stuff to begin with.

      Did a god create everything? For that matter, was all of what we see, perceive, and experience “created” by some kind of omniscient power? Unless we resolve this, there can be no argument built upon it and certainly no debate around the notion that a god “created” homosexuals.

      1. @benign0 Good luck engaging any religious zealot as to why using their bible as a citation source is an inherently flawed and fallacious practice.

        The moment that you reveal that you don’t believe in their “god”, they shut their ears and start singing “Kumbaya” out loud. There’s no reasoning with those who are deliberately ignorant.

        1. That is, if they don’t start hurling invectives, all sorts of damnations and accusations of heathenness, heresy, and how much of an uncivilized, lower life form the non-believer is, at him first.

          There’s no reasoning with those who think dogmatically.

      2. How is it a “shaky assumption”, man? I find it very reasonable to believe the idea that (a) God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past. (b) God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. (c) God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world. (d) God is the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (e) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness. (f) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. (g) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world. (h) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists. (i) God can be personally known and experienced.

        However, I do agree with you that it is an assumption that undergirds the more specific argument which goes:

        (1) We are all obligated to do God’s will.
        (2) God’s will is expressed in the Bible.
        (3) The Bible forbids homosexual behavior
        (4) Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God’s will, or is wrong.

        In this specific case, we can take the proposition (c) (although all these make a cumulative case for God). Anyway, this is to bridge what seems to be a gap in reasoning. I do hope that Christians (and their leaders) engage the issue more effectively and not simply quote the bible. There are several levels in this complex issue, such as 1. Same sex relationships (personal/private), 2. Homosexuality, 3. Homosexual acts/behavior, 4. Political/Social level discussion: Same Sex Marriage 5. Christian/religious perspectives, 6. Scientific data and its implications, and maybe others that I failed to mention.

        These are different issues and varying approaches address these differently, say, in the socio-political aspect which involves non-Christians, a biblical exposition may not be as effective as other arguments against state-sanctioned same sex marriage. Yeah, so I think clarifications of these subtleties are paramount to a more productive discussion. 🙂

        1. Yeah, but you may be rather dismissive without thinking about (f) to make it appear like it is a conversation stopper. This is actually the classic Leibniz argument to contingency on why something exists rather than nothing. It goes like this:

          (1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
          (2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
          (3) The universe exists.
          (4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
          (5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

          What can we deduce from this if successful? A necessary being, “God”, who is responsible for contingent matter, time and space (i.e., the universe and us). This isn’t a conversation stopper but a starter where we can further examine the premises and think about the properties of the conclusion. 🙂

  3. genetically speaking homosexuality is a defect. otherwise called the undesirable traits or the bad mutants in human race. in animal propagation, it is a cull to prevent the spread.

  4. There are 1,500 species of animals that practice cannibalism. Even cats cannibalize their stillborn offspring to not waste protein and nutrients. Pigs, which are very close to humans in regards to genetic makeup do so as well.
    I don’t suggest human beings do the same just because there are around 450 species of animals with the same behavioral anomaly as human beings.

      1. Pacquiao is approaching this wrong. I just read a rebuttal to Pac’s tirade saying that there are 450 animal species exhibiting homosexual behavior thus rendering Pac’s argument invalid.
        I mistakenly posted this on the wrong page

  5. To be honest, I don’t know why we should give a damn. But I would say, it’s because of politics. Perhaps the ultra-conservatives like Pacquiao much as people in the U.S. wanted Trump or how others here wanted Duterte, because he’s seen as something that will eliminate “undesirables.” This is what some people who like Pacquiao’s anti-gay stance will think of. They want to get rid of the gays. Problem is, when he’s voted, only few people think this way. They will vote him because he’s “magaling na boxingero.” So really, it’s all about politics.

    1. Pacquiao merely said out loud what many Filipinos think all the time, yet keep to themselves simply because one does not voice out his/her thoughts in polite company. And when I say polite I mean politically-correct, balat-sibuyas company.

      Why do Filipinos give a damn? Because they are starstruck ignoramuses, that’s why.

    2. I agree. Imagine how hate is driving our country. I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere here in GRP.

      People hating the things which their aspiring candidate is fighting determines their vote. And those who don’t care, they either keep the “vote money” or just do not vote. 🙁

    3. I agree that Pacquiao’s views very likely reflect the hushed sentiment of most Filipinos. However, he is a member of Congress and is a candidate for a Senate seat. So I think the bigger lesson to be learned out of this is that Pacquiao is completely out of his element in Philippine politics — specially in the legislature where thinking and communicating effectively and articulately is actually required (on the presumption that people actually understand what congressmen and senators are supposed to be doing in Congress).

      The outrage is not really in the views or beliefs he espouses. Rather, it is in his ineptness as a thinker and communicator considering the office he holds and the even higher office in the legislature he aspires to hold this coming elections.

      1. Yes, I agree.

        And once again, that someone like Pacquiao, who is way out of his league in politics, was elected by popular vote tells observers something about those who chose him. An unfit official elected by a people unfit to govern themselves. Like two peas in a pod.

        1. The only reason why anyone pay attention to Manny Pacquiao is he is rich and famous. Had he not been, no one would pay attention to what this ‘wannabe everything’ had to say.

  6. Pacquiao disturbed a “Hornet Nest”…now , he is stung from every place.

    We are debating an issue, we cannot understand. I request all sides , will observe civility; and not inflame the issue to their advantage.

  7. I think the most romantic letter you ever gave me was “W,” because it’s a couple of soul mate “V”s. Or maybe they were a couple of letters of the same sex engaging in a homosexual relationship. A “W” is two “V”s in a civil union, but the country called the Failippines is not ready to flip that on its head and let them go for the big “M.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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