tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post3589928923510772948..comments2023-07-20T16:11:43.324+08:00Comments on UP Babaylan: No Compromise For Human Rights by Benedict BernabeAngelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05217031992068725619noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-83758983311832023742011-03-04T17:52:58.209+08:002011-03-04T17:52:58.209+08:00The way I see it, the two conflicting beliefs are ...The way I see it, the two conflicting beliefs are as follows:<br /><br />(1) One one hand, Ms. Nikki del Corro seeks to be able to continue addressing Ms. Gercio as a male, by virtue of Ms. del Corro's religious belief.<br /><br />(2) On the other hand, Ms. Gercio seeks to have Ms. del Corro's religious belief modified or done away with, so that Ms. del Corro could address Ms. Gercio as a female.<br /><br />(It would not do to explain Ms. Gercio's belief to simply be her "seeking to be addressed in the gender she identifies with" because while it is true that THAT is one of her beliefs, it is not the exact belief that conflicts with Ms. del Corro's. As reported, Ms. Gercio already IS addressed by the rest of the class in the gender she identifies with. What she wants that she's not getting, is to be addressed in the gender she identifies with by ONE MORE person in particular.)<br /><br />Anyway, given the conflict between beliefs (1) and (2), it is clear who is intruding upon whose perceived rights. All these cries of religion-driven oppression on the part of Ms. del Corro are unjustified, because, in this issue, Ms. del Corro seeks to impose religious practice on no other person but herself. She seeks to reserve the right to address Ms. Gercio as a male, but she doesn't require Ms. Gercio to behave as a male or to modify her own mindset into thinking of herself as a male. All that Ms. del Corro is asking, is to allow HERSELF -- and nobody else -- to address Ms. Gercio as a male.<br /><br />Ms. Gercio, on the other hand, seeks to bring an individual external to herself (Ms. del Corro) into alignment with her own thinking. This, when EVERYBODY ELSE in the class already subscribes to her thinking. This makes Ms. Gercio the intruding party in this conflict. I'm not saying she's wrong or that her request is invalid. I'm merely pointing out that the conflict is borne of her intrusion and not of Ms. del Corro being on the defensive with her religious belief.<br /><br />Given all this, Ms. Lagamayo's call for an impasse is the most sensible thing I can think of, too. We are not infallible, all-knowing judges to be able to say with absolute certainty that gender identity is more important than religious belief, or vice-versa. We argue that human dignity is universal and above religious bias, but does human dignity not encompass the right to spiritual belief as well? Ms. del Corro holds her religious belief sacred. Ms. Gercio holds her gender identity sacred. Well, then, why don't they just BOTH hold their precious things sacred and not try to convert each other?<br /><br />Of course, even in such an impasse, there will remain a conflict, between one person who wishes to be addressed as a female by EVERYBODY, and another person hell-bent on being the one to negate the "everybody" category. But at least the conflict is kept personal, between the two individuals, who are actually the only ones this issue is concerned with anyway. If they wish to resolve that conflict, if they wish to convert each other, then they should do so on their own personal time and with their own personal devices. Not through higher governing or policy-making bodies. And certainly not through the invocation of the same legal technicalities that, in the first place, allowed them to possess conflicting beliefs and still co-exist.Andre Betitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-1489059774039049812011-03-04T17:52:33.571+08:002011-03-04T17:52:33.571+08:00I have just read the Facebook note by Ms. Anne Lag...I have just read the Facebook note by Ms. Anne Lagamayo and I commend her for keeping a clear head in the midst of the storm this issue seems to have caused.<br /><br />See, I think the real problem is that people's thought-processes are so polluted with belief-borne beliefs, that they can't isolate a single thought from the great mess of tangled ideas in their heads. You ask for their verdict on whether a single fruit is rotten and they insist on examining the entire forest for "background", and then they base their verdict on THAT background without ever taking five seconds to personally observe the fruit in question by itself.<br /><br />We really didn't need to invoke the Constitution here. We didn't need examples of the oppression of LGBT individuals elsewhere in the world. The Department of European Languages didn't even need to get involved. The issue at its core -- as Ms. Lagamayo has already implied and as I shall again point out for emphasis -- is simple: this is between two INDIVIDUALS with beliefs that conflict with each other. One is hell-bent on making the other address her as female. The other is hell-bent on saying no to that. This phenomenon, BY ITSELF, has as much significance to "the interests of the State" as two kids arguing who's going to be the cop in a game of cops and robbers.<br /><br />Really, the only way we can justify saying that this issue has some social significance is when (at least) one of the individuals decides to extend his/her individual belief to affect another individual's beliefs. That, unfortunately, is what Ms. Hender Gercio sought to accomplish. And failing to accomplish it by herself, she chose to ask the Department -- a socially-acknowledged policy-making body -- to do it for her. This single move is what threw the rock off the cliff, and started the snowball effect of everybody jumping in, thinking that the matter somehow affected them through some vaguely-perceived notion of how the matter affected society in its entirety.<br /><br />But let us zero in on the core of the issue itself: the two conflicting beliefs at the very center of this ridiculously huge snowball.Andre Betitanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-67374358372620560202011-03-04T16:46:22.645+08:002011-03-04T16:46:22.645+08:00matthew, unlike those people in sodom and gomorrah...matthew, unlike those people in sodom and gomorrah, i dont think gays you and i know of go about on the streets coercing and threatening people to have sex with them. its insane and almost unreal. cheers!<br /><br />howell, no one is wicked for being who they are naturally. don't you want be true to yourself instead of pretending to be someone else. and if you're concerned about who we express our love with, it no longer matters to you. we showed it and made it known to the other person the same way you did. we waited and asked if he or she felt the same. we didn't learn it from aliens.<br /><br />if you want to talk about morality then ask abraham first why he married his half-sister sarah. and who do you think adam and eve's children made love with, the cows in the meadows?lukenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-69158688425923894362011-03-03T21:41:00.097+08:002011-03-03T21:41:00.097+08:00(Romans 1:18-26)
"God’s Wrath Against Mankind...(Romans 1:18-26)<br />"God’s Wrath Against Mankind<br /><br />The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...<br />... Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."<br /><br />(Revelation 21:8)<br />"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”howie Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126959515583429050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-45762702178334686112011-03-03T13:01:56.870+08:002011-03-03T13:01:56.870+08:00"As our Constitution itself states, the State..."As our Constitution itself states, the State values the <b>dignity</b> of every human person and guarantees <b>full respect</b> for human rights."<br />...<br />"I believe that <b>dignity</b> includes being referred to the gender by which you identify and the State guarantee of full respect covers the acts of its own actors"<br /><br />Hmmm.. The problem here is that Ms.Del Corro has her own definition of <b>dignity</b>. I also believe that Ms. Del Corro intentionally address this matter in a private way (not in front of the class) to show <b>full respect</b>Howie D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-61757570298112104312011-03-03T01:30:54.490+08:002011-03-03T01:30:54.490+08:00Hi matthew,
You should read these two articles be...Hi matthew,<br /><br />You should read these two articles before you take a stand on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) rights. Obviously you dont know anything about the LGBT community, and you know VERY little about universal human rights. Not all Filipinos are Christians, but we are all humans, so dont even argue about religion here. <br /><br />Read this:<br /><br />http://upbabaylan.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-compromise-for-human-rights-by.html<br /><br />and this:<br /><br />http://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.htmlmoodyhttp://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-25636636554669038252011-03-03T01:25:31.957+08:002011-03-03T01:25:31.957+08:00Hi veronique,
i also dont agree with nikki del co...Hi veronique,<br /><br />i also dont agree with nikki del corro citing the bible and saying that homosexuality is a sin. she is what i call a fundamentalist. and just like most fundamentalists, they are VERY SELECTIVE with which entries in the bible should be retained and dismissed. take a look at this. http://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.htmlmoodyhttp://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-30733252899835408292011-03-03T00:41:48.296+08:002011-03-03T00:41:48.296+08:00"Why are we being selective in the verses tha..."Why are we being selective in the verses that we live by? Isn’t that prejudiced treatment?"<br /><br />Whatever you say dude. Maybe it applies to homosexuals as well, all of you saying homosexuality is not a sin and forgetting about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha? Cheers.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515463931520851195.post-10972447455198741142011-03-03T00:09:01.381+08:002011-03-03T00:09:01.381+08:00hi! very well written piece. :)
i don't agree...hi! very well written piece. :)<br /><br />i don't agree with his citing of the Bible though (but only in this part). he cannot use Old testament verses while refering to things we base (Christians) our acts upon, specially our time, which is now. <br /><br />with the New testament, with Christ's blood saving us from all sins - Old testament practices have been overruled by the ones in the New testament.<br /><br />you can read more here:<br />http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html<br /><br />anyway, hope the situation turns out for the better.<br /><br />more powerVeroniquenoreply@blogger.com