Is it really possible to know what goes on inside a marriage, even that of your parents?
No, my parents are not about to divorce. In fact, applicable din naman yung tanong diba sa mga marriage na naglalast? Napaisip lang ako bigla kasi ibang klaseng dynamics din talaga ang kasal, hindi lang sya basta contract on top of a relationship eh, hindi lang sya basta governed by romantic notions such as love, commitment and companionship (although they appear to be its core principles). I'm sure what I'm saying isn't new to your ears, I guess this is just the twenty-something in me realizing this stuff on a more personal level, tipong nagsisimula na kasi akong maka-relate talaga. But this is not even an attempt to answer that question.
Napa-ponder lang tuloy ako, what about my situation and my future? Sa susunod talaga na may magtanong sakin na relative (no matter how well-meaning), sabihin ko kaya na, "Ay, matagal pa po yun... (sabay hirit) matagal pa po kasi ang same-sex marriage sa Pinas."
Pero hindi nga, what about us party to same-sex partnerships (especially for those who believe in marriage and desire it), how different are we able to (or forced to) construct our notions of a long-term relationship without the possibility (or remote possibility) of marriage? Without comparing which is better or worse. I'm not saying marriage is the pinnacle of a relationship between two people, but surely marriage could provide something beautiful (or different, for the not-so-romantic) to gay relationships. And for us to be denied that extra something just because, well, just because (go deeper, is there a reason really?) isn't that just non-sense? And to think we have to fight for it, still. Sure, you don't need a stamp of approval from society/religion to engage in whatever relationship, which is your own business. But.
For me, what is at stake here is that we are being excluded from (or accused of attacking) the very same values we choose to uphold through ourselves and through the personal lives we try to lead. No kind of relationship holds monopoly on love. On commitment. On one of the most inexplicable experience of what it is to be human. That is ultimately the kind of acknowledgement we want to prevail. Nothing ever nullifies a person's love for another, not even sexuality.
For me, what is at stake here is that we are being excluded from (or accused of attacking) the very same values we choose to uphold through ourselves and through the personal lives we try to lead. No kind of relationship holds monopoly on love. On commitment. On one of the most inexplicable experience of what it is to be human. That is ultimately the kind of acknowledgement we want to prevail. Nothing ever nullifies a person's love for another, not even sexuality.
How come the debate can't end simply with that?
It is the same with parenting and family. What limiting (and ultimately without compassion) belief it is to think that children only thrive within a father&mother environment. Kung commercial ito ng rubbing alcohol, pwede. But in the real world as it happens, it is not sufficient. Nor is it necessary. Instead it should be recognized as one among many possibilities. What merit does that argument hold to the exclusion of other family arrangements (not only that of same-sex couples) that put the welfare of children first? None.
Naisip ko nga, hindi ba mas deliberate choice nga ang pagbuo ng pamilya for same-sex couples (let's say)? Of course, that doesn't mean their children would fare better than the rest. So why the fear? Why the prophecies of doom?
Naisip ko nga, hindi ba mas deliberate choice nga ang pagbuo ng pamilya for same-sex couples (let's say)? Of course, that doesn't mean their children would fare better than the rest. So why the fear? Why the prophecies of doom?
Do they think that gay couples connive secretly with each other in their pretend-not-Valentine Feb 14 dinners or in their post-anal sex cuddling, saying, "Surely mas maraming borta mas masaya, Meynteyn!" or "Fuck this broken wearisome world! Let's go raise some child of darkness (for lack of "a mother's love") who'll certainly grow up to be a pedophile or mass murderer," and then proceed to create a family? A family where they will devote so much of their energy and time, expend a big part of themselves, and invest their dreams on?
That's all the proof you need to be able to believe in your human heart that, sure, gays are out there to destroy humanity. They are threat to humanity because they are all too inhuman to want calling each other Husband (or Wife) and, maybe, even chase around the house grandchildren of their own.
____
Sabi ni Vik, gusto daw nya ng anak na pangarap maging stockbroker. Ako, future Nobel Prize in Physics winner pwede na.
As a non-romantic, I see that the differences between a gay relationship with (legal) marriage versus without are the following: [1] the stamp of approval by society; [2] certain legal rights given to both partners. (Legal lang muna ha, malabo talaga yung gay marriage in church.)
ReplyDeleteStamp of approval? At least puwede kayong mag-PDA ng walang pakundangan... or at least, until the prudes get uncomfy. Legal rights? Bongga yun, but as gay activists have pointed out in the past, one can approximate certain legal rights without needing gay marriage.
For a non-romantic like me, in the end it's all about having a choice.
If feel na feel mo talaga na makipagsabayan sa mga straights and to pattern your relationship with the most influential relationship of our life (your parents'), then sana we have the freedom of choice to go knock ourselves out with worrying about the kind of wedding ring, the outfits, the number of children we can have, what they will become when they grow up.
But if you want to go and defy (or redefine) what a relationship is about, then sana we also have the freedom of choice to go that route.
And if you're somewhere in the middle, sana we also have the freedom of choice to be able to muddle our way in the middle.