Satuito, Bermonica A.

2016

March 30,

2015-13262

ENG 2-C4

An Inquisitor and a Pansy: Lost in Translation

A Position Paper

Some people say that columnists, despite their freedom to comment on any
issue, have to consider the impact their comments would have on particular sectors
of society and that he must not criticize what he does not understand. In this case,
regarding Isagani Cruzs column Don We Now Our Gay Apparel and a response on
it The Grand Inquisitor written by his fellow columnist Manuel Quezon III, one may
say that all Cruz has just done was to express his own opinion, and it is valid for it
makes some sense. But not that all people believe in his general opinion, some
people believe all human life deserves respect. The only problem with his assertions
is he seemingly does not understand what it is like to be trapped in a wrong body.
One may never actually comprehend something unless you have been in the
position, or you know the feeling of the experience. However, here are some points
which can be taken for Cruzs argument.
First, regarding same-sex marriage, homosexuals think that if they have the
right to marry, then they will feel accepted by society at large, even if they do not
have all the same rights as others do. Simply this will not guarantee acceptance.
Some people agree that legalizing it will not directly set the equality between LGBTs
and heterosexuals that easy. Plus, marriage is the first step to making a family and
two persons with a same gender cannot make one obviously. For those who will
suggest for an adoption, well yes it is an option, but mothers are irreplaceable even
by the kindest gay parent.
Second, about what Cruzs has said about allowing gays to participate in
Flores De Mayo, it is agreeable that gays should not really be allowed. It is a Marian
ceremony; only the finest females should be allowed to participate in it. Whatever it
is a person will think about Marian Devotion, be it a new form of goddess worship or

not, so be it. But the same way women should not perform Jesus' role in a Sarswela,
gays should not dress up like Mary. It is that simple.
Lastly, Cruz's anger seems directed at practicing homosexuals. When he
mentioned that he did not dislike all gays, he implied an acceptance of effeminate
males who in spite of their effeminate behavior, are still heterosexual by preference,
or do not engage in man-to-man sex. In this sense he basically echoes the
fundamental Church stand on the issue. Being effeminate and having homosexual
leanings is fine as long as not practiced.
Be that as it may, he still failed to define his boundaries in this accord. People
should not condemn nor discriminate homosexuals, simply because everyone is just
as human as they are, people have own sins to worry about, and no one knows of
their circumstances. Besides, there's no doubting the fact that they are among the
most creative people in the world, and having artistic aspirations as well; artistic
people do not deserve such hate.
Cruz did not make his work palatable enough for his audience. He made it too
forceful that it came off as brash and arrogant. It was so forceful that he came off as
a long rant. And his paper is essentially one long hasty generalization, a long
opinion presented as fact.
On the other hand, let us take a look with Manuel Quezon IIIs argument. In
his first paragraph, he questioned Cruz about Cruz hating the sin but loving the
sinner, he says that that just opens a possible debate of what really is a sin. Well
one must say, sinners are not defined by their sins. Obviously he is unfamiliar with
the theological ideas of agent and action. People, being made in God's image, are
inherently lovable and impossible to hate. They are not sin, but possible agents of it.
Sin is an act; the act does not equal the actor. People can do crazy things that do
not define who they really are. Every teacher knows that the unruly kid in the front
row may simply be misunderstood, not evil. But if his unruliness is indicative of his
true character, then he would be evil, which is not true.
On his second paragraph, he ended it with a question, and it is whether
Christianity must end with Christ. Come on, Christ debated with the devil, not
befriend nor tolerate him. Christ actively spoke out against societal wrongs such as

hypocrisy and proto-simony in his Father's Temple. He did not so much befriend
the devil by engaging him in a debate, He blamed Satan's temptations. That is not a
debate but a one-sided fight between God's Son and Satan.
He also argues that Cruz defames religion by turning it into an ideology of
hate. Oh, Cruz never did. He did not use religion in his arguments but used
chauvinism instead. Chauvinism is the belief that your own kind is better than any
other. Thus, religion was never then used as a tool of hate. Furthermore, he then
believes that society is all the better for the increased prominence of gays, and so,
can we have some proof?
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that freedom of speech includes not
only the right to express the thought that agrees with us but also the thought that
we abhor. In every opinion one does not agree, he may say so why he does not
agree and explain further; but one thing he cannot do is to attack the person who
gave the opinion personally. Quezon attacked Cruz from the wrong context. He
called Cruz a hate-monger for deriding the vulgar practices of his kind and says
Cruz has no right to say what is tasteless and intolerable. Hit the enemy where he
is, not where he isn't Mr. Quezon.
These being said, both articles by Cruz and Quezon are of odious quality.
Quezon came off as too emotional while Cruz came off as arrogant. With mindsets
like both, both hardly think with their minds but their hearts, no real intellectual
discourse is possible.
This issue is much like recent controversy on Manny Pacquiaos assertion
about homosexuals and LGBTs replies on what he has said. Recently, the Filipinos
pride in boxing had a chance to comment on same sex marriages. He frankly said
that homosexuals acts are against the laws of God and that he hates the sin which
is having sexual intercourse with the same sex. Contrary to the headlines and the
claims of LGBT activists, Pacquiao did not issue a blanket condemnation of
homosexuals as worse than animals. Instead, he was making a far more limited
point. He was saying that the humanity will be worse than animals if these acts
continue to happen, playing blind for distinguishing men from women.

These are not the words of a homophobic bigot, just like with Cruzs words.
Unfortunately, however, we live in a society in which the mere expression of
disagreement is quickly labeled as hatred, and where well-funded LGBT activist
organizations are on the prowl to expose and punish the slightest deviation from the
prescribed rules of political correctness on homosexuality.