TaN: Marriage is for procreation; if no offsprings result from marriage, the union can morally and legally be void and subject to divorce — even the Holy Scriptures provide for it (please refer to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 5:31-32 KJV or see: http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/divorce.htm). Anything else cannot be considered as marriage, as in same-sex marriage. Even in the Holy Scriptures, once a union produces offsprings, it cannot be voided or annulled.
Same-sex marriages are an attempt to create confusion and discontentment and animosity among people. If people of the same gender wants to enjoy some semblance of married life, they can always enter into a (legal) contract with all the trimmings of marriage but please never refer to it as marriage.
In addition, because of advances in medical technology, it is now possible — although as to its (long-term) safety and health issues is totally a different matter — to change one’s gender. This is an abomination and no amount of argument and justification can make it moral or right(eous). The matter of same gender marriages gets even more confusing because one may no longer be sure whether one is marrying a true opposite gender.
Moreover, gender alteration may and should be grounds for dissolution or annulment of a marriage on the grounds that there was (deliberate) deception — unless it was made clear to both parties, especially to the one who think s/he is marrying a true opposite gender that s/he is not. It is morally deceptive to lead other people into thinking and believing (their eyes) when, in fact and in truth, it is entirely something or someone different.
But going back to the subject of marriage and same gender marriages, I really cannot understand why such people insist on marriage when there is a perfectly identical solution except that it will not be called a marriage. So what is in a name? Is it so important that the “union” be called a marriage? Are we losing focus on what should be? I fail to see and comprehend the adamant insistence wanting marriage when there is an alternative solution that will not complicate matters.
We can even concede to as far as calling the parties involve a “family”, but just not “married”. I guess there are just people who feel so left out or so excluded and so in need of belonging and being accepted that they would go to the extent of labeling others as gender-biased or some kind of prejudice against homosexuals just so they can be extended marriage privileges.
Come on, if you are so desperate, you can always agree to live together as though married. After all, what is that piece of paper? It could not bind many couples from filing for divorce or separation, after perjuring themselves from the vows they took — of “…till death do us part“.
From what I can understand, these people are just trying to make an issue out of nothing or something that can otherwise be resolved simply. They are acting like spoiled brats who want what they cannot have. It is soooo shallow.
TaN: It is not wrong (nor immoral nor unethical) to use “bad” or derogatory words for as long as it is the truth. It is the falsehood or untruth that is immoral, unethical, and politically incorrect, prejudicial, or whatever you want to call it. This increasing wave of harassment from people with petty minds regarding the use of terms that are allegedly insulting or otherwise derogatory is absurd and getting out of hand.
There is nothing wrong with calling someone a “fool” if s/he is truly a fool, just as it is wrong to heap praises and compliments on someone undeserving — like saying someone if intelligent when s/he is actually stupid. To call someone stupid when in fact s/he is stupid is just telling the truth and not slanderous.
I am not sure when it all began but it came into my notice when terms such as “chairperson”, “directress”, “spokesperson”, and “doctora” came into popular use (especially among the media and public speakers). I would hazard to guess that it is due to the popular wave in the United States of America of being “politically correct” and not wanting to be accused of being gender biased.
There is no such term and using them is actually exhibiting or causing the exact opposite of what the purpose is supposed to serve. By using such terms, one actually shows that one is gender conscious and being gender conscious means that one is or has a tendency to be gender biased.
Using the traditional terminology, in truth, implies that one is not very particular with the gender of the person and that one is merely going by the customary terms and addresses. It is more prejudicial or politically incorrect to use chairperson rather than chairman, even when the person is not male, because it only shows that the speaker is prone to giving importance to a person’s gender where the gender issue is actually irrelevant (to the current situation).
In short, being politically correct — by being gender conscious or label conscious or what conscious — is, in effect, creating barriers and putting up walls to separate and segregate people when we should be building bridges and breaking down barriers to treat people as people rather than labeling and “sorting” them into particular stereotypes and categories. We are all people, regardless of our skin color, our gender, our religious or ethnic background or heritage, our nationality or citizenship, or whatever else that sets us different from others. We must discard our tendency to focus on the material and superficial and focus more on the true being and person of others.
TaN: It is easy to tell whether a person is honestly and sincerely ignorant (i.e., telling untruths is unintentional and with no malice) or outwardly and unabashedly lying (through his teeth). In the former, they will stand pat and face the truth and defend him/herself and his/her actions or decisions, while the latter will scurry and run away, shunning the light o truth.
This is what happens to people who are caught in ambush interviews. Those unintentionally telling untruths will not be ashamed or embarrassed and will agree to be interviewed, whereas those who know they are lying will try to flee or avoid (ambush) interviews and will not agree to or grant interviews and will not respond to attempts by media and researchers (truth seekers) trying to shed light into certain issues.
Moreover, those who tell untruths unintentionally (out of ignorance or incomplete knowledge of the whole truth) would not hesitate to correct themselves and admit their mistakes (in public) the first chance they get.
On the other hand, (deliberate) liars will stubbornly insist on their lies and would even swear “on a stack of Bibles”. These frequently is due to the need to “save face” and preserve their “credibility”. They have no compunction to speak falsehoods even when other people’s lives or reputations are jeopardized, all in the name of keeping their own reputations and social standing.
There is nothing wrong about telling untruths — to be differentiated from (outright) lies, which are implied to be deliberate as against untruths which imply unintentional — for as long as it is not done purposefully (and will not hesitate to admit and correct oneself upon learning of the falsity).
The disturbing realization is that there are quite a number of people these days who will not hesitate or resort to lies whatever their reason may be — and will not feel any remorse nor the slightest guilt. Frequently, these people will claim “ignorance” or will continue to adamantly deny lying even when faced with overwhelming and undeniable proofs. One of the most common ways by which they keep from feeling guilty is to resort to redefinitions of terms to delude themselves they are not lying.
Nowadays, it has become so sophisticated and complicated to discern the truth that the only possible way to determine the truth is to look into the heart — which only God can do. There are, however, attempts being done to replicate this sole purview of the Lord, as evidenced by the current research by the United States of America initiated by the Obama administration — there are attempts to find some kind of physiological and/or chemical processes in certain regions of the brain which the researchers believe provide clues to detect impure and evil thoughts (shades of Minority Report and George Orwell’s 1984), see or refer to: http://www.naturalnews.com/z039882_brain_mapping_research_program_Obama.html.
TaN: There is a fatal flaw in the logic of Mr Duterte with respect to his campaign against illegal drugs — it is but a palliative and will sure to make a (bigger) comeback after he leaves office, unless and until he ensures its continuity by changing the behavior of the Filipino.
It will require a complete overhaul and change of attitude or an honest and comprehensive “straightening” of the way we practice our values — from the aging population to the newborns. Without that critical change in attitude, sooner or later — just like what happened with Mr Marcos’ Bagong Lipunan — the old ways will come back and perhaps even with a vengeance.
On the one hand, the good thing about being president is that one has the opportunity to make changes on a national level. On the other hand, the drawback is one gets only one shot at success. There is no extension, at least not in the present form of (presidential) government, not unless one resorts to martial law for an indefinite stay in power (similar to what Mr Marcos did in the 1970s and into the 80s).
The Constitution expressly prohibits a second term for the Presidency. And drawing from previous experience — as aforementioned in the case of the Bagong Lipunan — the change that was first seen at the few weeks or months of martial law has returned to the “old” ways. Iron fist tactics, by itself, may work but will never last.
Unlike local positions, for instance being a mayor where you may have a shorter (three-year) time span, there is only a minor hindrance: a short three-year term but with 2 (successive) re-elections but may be repeated after a one-term hiatus. This means you can “remain” in office “indefinitely” which increases the chances of achieving a successful and lasting change and little or no chance of backsliding.
Moreover, working at the local level means one can only affect your local constituency. The only way for it to reach a nationwide scale is to have all local governments follow suit.
There is already an impending harmful “side effect” in this campaign against illegal drugs. It has brought about vigilantism and if it is not nip in the bud, it may grow too big to stop. In addition, in last week’s news, the Philippine National Police chief “Bato” dela Rosa’s defense that most of the extrajudicial killings or summary executions were not done by law enforcement operatives but by vigilantes and by drug syndicates trying to rub each other out. This is a lame excuse for not being alarmed enough to give it as much importance as the anti-illegal drug campaign. This kind of “collateral damage” is simply not acceptable.
In conclusion, the argument of Mr Duterte that the UN and other foreign entities should stop meddling in the internal affairs of the Philippines and not single the country out because there are other countries with similar or even worse records is just not justifiable. It is like arguing that the police should not run after me, a minor thief, when there are murderers and plunderers running around. It is not the point. The point is that the killings by others aside from the police should not occur, regardless of whether it is worse in other countries or not.