Dec
23

Fabcast: The Pride and The Power, Part 1

Issues, Podcasts Entry Feed Trackback

This fabcast was recorded after the Pride March (so I was still in the US, thus I’m not in this recording). Let’s hear it from co-fabcaster Gibbs Cadiz:

Recorded a couple of weeks ago with a fairly frisky and opinionated peanut gallery, who trade thoughts and ideas with us on the then just-ended Pride March and the earlier outrageous Comelec decision disqualifying Ang Ladlad for party-list accreditation on grounds of “immorality.” The opinions run the gamut–from those who think marching and seeking a place in Congress isn’t needed anymore (or at least not what they can relate to for now), to those who think it’s the next crucial step toward further acceptance, and not merely toleration (more often condescension), by society. I lay down my position quite early, with much sardonic laughter but also every word meant: Kung moralidad lang naman ang pag-uusapan, wala na sigurong matitira sa Kongreso. At sa Comelec. Change “wala na” to “konti na lang”, and I’d also include the Church. Whee. Do join the hearty huddle.

Listen: (23 min 53 sec)

Download this fabcast (right click and save – 22.9 MB)

Possibly Related Posts:

  1. Fabcast: The Pride and The Power, Part 2 Here’s the 2nd part, and conclusion of post-Pride March fabcast...
  2. Pride March on December 9, 2006 On December 9, 2006, Filipinos who embrace diversity and equality...
  3. How Will You March Your Pride? “I’m a butterfly! I’m a pretty little brown butterfly!!!” –...
  4. Pride Manila Chorus Looking for Singers [I'm posting this announcement in support of this all-gay choir...
  5. Do you remember your first pride march? [Posting this email I received from Peachy Natividad, an invitation...

2 Comments So Far

  1. With respect to the opinion of probably almost everyone here, here are my arguments for not considering Ladlad as a party list:

    1. LADLAD cannot be classified as a sectoral organization, or a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns. This is because there are support groups and organizations of persons with same-sex attractions (or what popular media calls homosexuals), but do not share the same interests and concerns of the group LadLad.

    2. LADLAD represents a behavior-based group, not like the other sectors enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941. They do not rest on substantial distinctions (People v. Cayat) that have relative permanency (such as the elderly or women), but only on superficial difference that changes relatively in time. As such, they may represent a group that may recklessly impose their own behavior standards on the public. They represent a group that promotes and celebrates the homosexual lifestyle – cruising, gay-bars, same-sex relationships and sexual activities. I don’t think the law (RA7941) was created for the purpose of including behavior-based groups. If you will allow LadLad to be a candidate for partylist, then we should also allow shoppers, car enthusiasts, pedophiles and mountain hikers to file their candidacies as well.

    Quoting my blogger friend, what’s needed by homosexuals are compassion, caring, healing, love, and protection and NOT normalization, rationalization, and desensitization of the entire society to homosexual acts.

    Thank you.

    CP at Dec 23, 09 at 4:28 pm

  2. I just would like to sure this article regarding the hot topic of discrimination. I think it is important for us to know what the word discrimination really implies. Here is the link:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121512.html

    I am not in favor of granting “special rights” to gay people because this implies that the LGBT is a separate class of people distinct from others which is baseless in the first place. Every human being has his or her basic human rights that need to be protected for and defended by the State. I don’t really see the need for any special treatment whatsoever just on the basis of sexual orientation per se.

    Thanks.

    CP at Dec 23, 09 at 4:34 pm

Leave your comment

(required)

(required)