The Gay Marriage Conundrum: What is it all about?

Last March 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear questions on the legality of same-sex marriage. It was whether the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state, were constitutional and legal respectively. A judge in California previously ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional as it discriminates based on sexual orientation.

The debate on same-sex marriage really started to alight in 2001, when the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, since then, nine other countries have followed suit such as Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Sweden (2008), Norway (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), and Argentina (2010). In the United States, only nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington) recognize same-sex marriage plus the District of Columbia.

The opposition to same-sex marriage has been vociferous because of the involvement of conservative, right wing religious Christians who oppose it based on questions of morality and of course, because it is, according to the Bible, an abomination. Indeed, the Bible even abhors transvestism, in Deut. 22:5 it says: "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing: the Lord your God hates people who do such things." And homosexuality is clearly prohibited, to wit Lev. 18: 22 "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."

Many conservatives oppose gay marriage in addition to the moral argument because for them, it will destroy the foundations of marriage, corrupt children, degrade society and pervert the purpose of marriage, which for them is the procreation of children.

Without a doubt, the opposition to same-sex marriage in Christian countries, at least where such conversation can still be had, is based on moral and biblical grounds. Using the deconstructionist theory of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, I will break down the arguments commonly propounded by conservatives against the concept of same-sex marriage.

1. The Moral Argument

Opposition to same-sex marriage based on the moral argument is weak at best and flimsy at most. When conservatives oppose gay marriage, it is indubitably rested upon the Judeo-Christian moral argument. Of course, if we use the moral argument of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we would be brought to a really, really perplexing situation: remember, if we use the moral standards of the Bible, we would be committing unbelievable cruelty and gross inhumanity that can only be equated by the reprehensible acts of the Nazis. In fact, the Bible recommends the murder of those who engage in homosexual acts (Lev. 20: 13), demands that married women be subject to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1, Ephe. 5:22), considers women basically as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), promotes slavery (Ephe. 6: 5) among others. Clearly, the moral standards of a morality based on the Judeo-Christian tradition is at best immoral by modern standards of human conduct.

2. Same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional concept of marriage

What is the traditional definition of marriage? Throughout history, marriage was never about love or individual initiative, it was about power, money and alliance. This was most evident with women, who were never allowed to have a say in any marriage arrangement - they were married either to pay debts, to build alliance (Mary Antoinette being married to King Louis XVI), to maintain wealth within the family (the Habsburg's of the Holy Roman Empire) or simply to gain political influence over a territory (Philipp II of Spain's marriage to  Queen Mary I of England) or bear heirs, preferably male ones (Henry VIII of England who had serial wives with the sole purpose of finding one who will bear him a male heir). Is that the traditional concept of marriage that conservatives of the 21st century are trying to protect? A concept of marriage that essentially treats women as nothing more than chattel to be traded at will and by necessity.

In addition, opposition to gay marriage is also prefixed on the assumption that it will destroy marriage itself. Which is to say that marriage itself is in the first place weak and superficial as it can be destroyed by the mere marriage of two persons who belong to the same sex who nevertheless love each other. These conservatives are therefore admitting that marriage is a weak institution for if it were strong and stable, then surely two people marrying because they love and care for each other will only strengthen the concept of marriage as an institution that is built on love and commitment.

3. Same-sex marriage will corrupt children

Yeah right! Like only gay people have the exclusive capacity to mess up children's lives. Is it then impossible for heterosexual couples to abuse and exploit their own flesh and blood. Maybe these conservative nutbags should visit orphanages, shelters for abused and abandoned children and the like - were these children not victims of heterosexual couples, a number of whom are legally married? And these conservatives also insist that gay people who are married and who are allowed to rear children can influence the sexual orientation of their adopted children, yet studies after studies have shown that there is no significant effect on the sexuality of children who were raised by same-sex couples.

4. Marriage is for the procreation of children

Nonsense. So it goes to say then that heterosexual couples who do not want children or who are unable to bear children do not have real marriages?

Same-sex marriage is about equality, justice and respect. Surely love is beyond the confines of beauty (Will we allow only beautiful people to marry?), wealth (Should we restrict marriage to those who are financially capable only?) or intelligence (Should we prohibit those whose IQ are below 100 from marriage?), for such are mere superficialities of what it is to be human (just like the physical sex), what counts is that people engage in marriage because they feel a sense of completeness, wholeness and of being alive. That is what is important, that is what counts - modern societies cannot neglect the rights of the few, especially if such rights do no harm, imposes no danger or creates no chaos other than the upholding of the entrenched prejudice perpetrated by the closed and rigid moral standards of a bygone era.

Marriage is a human right. A right beyond the mere physicality of our bodies. Respect it.

ROH and Honesty

In vino veritas,
So the ancient Romans say
But does it really bring honesty?
Or merely inhibits the shame
That comes with the truth?
And as they say
The truth always hurts
But frees and liberates
Liberates and emancipates
And always, always it brings
A sense of fulfillment
That after all,
Honesty indeed, and only honesty
Makes one truly feel good.
ROH is the juice of the gods
Not the evil it is always portrayed to be
For in the end
What is the truth
But those which we wished were not otherwise were.

Crisis in Cyprus: The Eurocrush of a Small Country

I was actually surprised that the Euro, Europe's monetary experiment at unity survived passed September 2012. At the earlier part of 2012, the Euro was beset by problems spurned by the insolvent Greek economy, the teetering Spanish and Italian economies not to mention the sovereign rescues of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and on a partial manner, the financial lifeline extended to the Spanish banking system.

And then came Cyprus, which was on the brink of bankruptcy following the massive losses of its two largest banks, which have invested heavily, apparently without financial basis, on Greek bonds, which as we know now, are practically in the doldrums. The Cypriot banking system is roughly twice the size of the 18 billion USD Cypriot economy, which is supported by its tourist and banking sectors. Russia is reported to have massive deposits in Cyprus, attracted by its low 10% corporate tax rate, which is half that of other European countries. The troika, composed of the ECB, the IMF and the European Commission is said to have arm-twisted the Cypriots into finding a way to raise EUR 5 billion in order to receive a cash infusion of EUR 10 billion to save Cyprus' banking sector, essentially its economy. The now infamous decision to tax the deposits to achieve such that was widely derided by economists across the world and most especially by the ordinary Cypriot depositor. Such plan was eventually rejected by the Cypriot parliament. However, the damage has been done, and until now the banks in Cyprus are still closed, and when it does open sometime this week, a possible bank run will not be an impossibility. A possibility that the Cypriot government can delay by limiting daily withdrawals, but such will only delay the inevitable, the eventually collapse of trust in the Cypriot banking system.

The original bailout plan suggested by the troika was to tax all deposits, this was in turn changed to protect deposits of less than EUR 100,000 but imposing a tax of between 20-25% on larger deposits. As of now, the Cypriot government is still hammering out new strategies of coming up with the required money without stealing from depositors.

We are still waiting how the Cypriot government will actually solve this problem, and frankly, even if they come up with a moderately reasonable solution for the matter, investors the world over will have been scarred by the experience of the last two weeks and will take necessary precautions from then on. This could put a dampen on the euro as a viable currency. Indeed, some pundits have already sounded the death knell for the euro, predicting for example that before or by the year 2020, the Euro may have to be extinct. This view was articulated by none other than Jim O'Neill, a Goldman Sachs economist. O'Neill asserts that by 2020, Germany will be exporting twice as much to China as to France, essentially making the euro useless and irrelevant. Indeed, the euro was suggested by France to dampen the overwhelming power of the German economy which, incidentally, was wholly embraced by Germany as it made its exports to other eurozone countries more competitive than it otherwise would have been without the euro. It cannot be denied that if there was ever a country in Europe who has substantially benefited form the adoption of the euro, it would undoubtedly be Germany. As always, Germany continues to have export surpluses with the rest of the eurozone, making its exports virtually cheap and affordable, not to mention of good quality and craftmanship. This was because of the euro, which made Germany actually export more since the euro made German products cheap than if the Deustchmarks were used.

The euro conundrum then is - with the impending problematic financial situation that Cyprus is in - will the euro even be worth its benefits? Cyprus will be a petridish for this eventuality. Whatever happens in Cyprus will forever determine the fundamental viability and raison d'etre of the euro itself and may herald, as O'Neill predicts, an earlier than expected EUROCALYPSE.

MOVIE REVIEW: Jack Reacher (2012)

Tom Cruise stars as Jack Reacher, a former U.S. Army Military Police Corps Officer and a drifter called upon by James Barr, a former U.S. Army sniper who is framed for the murder of five people. Reacher eventually arrives in Pittsburg after seeing news footagge of Barr and the shooting. Reacher sees Barr in a ospital in a coma after fellow inmates brutally attacked him while being trasported in a prison van. There he meets Helen Rodin, a lawyer who is trying to save Barr from the death penalty. Jack was previously denied access to the evidence against Barr but Helen promises him to arrange for him to see the evidence if he agrees to be her investigator. Reacher initially refuses and informs Helen that Barr actually did kill some people while in Iraq although he was never prosecuted for such act. Eventually Reacher agrees with Helen's plan but only if she visits the victim's families to learn about them. After visiting the scene of the crime, Reacher discovers inconsistencies and casts doubts on Barr's participation in the crime. Helen tells Jack that a local owner of a construction company was actually the intended victim and the others were mere collaterals to cover up the crime.

After figuring in a bar fight, Reacher realizes that someone is trying to prevent him from pursuing the investigation and discovers that the perpetrators were members of a Russian gang posing as legitimate businessmen. The head of the gang is known as Zec, a Russian who previously served prison time in a Soviet Gulag. The gang kidnaps Helen with the aid of the police investigator Emerson. With the assistance of Sgt. Cash, a shooting range owner where Barr did practice shooting, he rescues Helen and eventually kills Zec. Barr eventually wakes up from his coma and confesses to the killings. Jack disappears after Helen's rescue, leaving Helen to clear his name.

Not just a traditional guns and shooting type of movie, the piece delivered suspense, thrill, cunning and creativity that will intellectually stimulate the viewer and cast doubts about the possible scenarios that could happen. Tom Cruise still has the a-game with his combination of James Bond style charisma while never losing the bravado and physical deft of Vin Diesel or Jason Statham.

The end seems to suggest that everything is not over as Zec emphasized that he is only the tip of the iceberg. Could there be a sequel? Let's see.

MOVIE REVIEW: Burlesk King (1999)

I have heard of the movie since it was released in 1999 but never actually got the chance to see it until now. I actually think the movie was well written, reasonably acted and accurately portrayed the realities of life in the Philippines, at least on the seedier side but nevertheless a part and a parcel of its national psyche, I dare say even of our national experience.

The movie follows the story of Harry (Rodel Velayo) who was born to a Filipina prostitute mother Betty (Elizabeth Oropesa) and an American abusive father who pimped him to foreign customers as a young boy. On a planned escape on night, Harry and his mother were caught by his father as they were living the shanty they were living in. Harry's mother was beaten unconscious, which prompted Harry to run away to Manila where he met James (Leonardo Litton), who introduced him to Manila's gay bar scene. Eventually, Harry learned to work the ropes and became a male stripper in the club James worked.

Harry met a petite young prostitute Brenda (Nini Jacinto) on whom he eventually fell in love with. They would eventually bear a child towards the end of the movie. The ups and downs of the sex trade eventually catches up with James and he is murdered one night. Harry is devastated with the death of James and moves out of the house he lived with James and his sister, Aileen (Elizabeth Oropesa), who is a lesbian and living with a woman. Harry decides to return to Olongapo City where he was born to finally settle score with his father and discovers that his dad is dying of AIDS. He also meets by accident his mother who he thought was killed when he was young. They re-unite and eventually move-in with Brenda.

Mario, a gay writer Harry met in the strip club and on whom he established a good friendship finally gets the love and full attention of his erstwhile uncommitted doctor boyfriend. Towards the end of the movie, Harry is convinced by Betty to bring home his father, finally closing his lingering issues with him.

I never thought that the movie was more than just about the carnal escapades of Manila's night life, it was actually a heart warming movie of family struggles, friendship, commitment, forgiveness, love and the search for happiness. It is definitely a must watch for the mature audience and clearly presents in a human and non-judgemental way the struggle for acceptance. In the end, the movie presents the timeless and perennial theme of human life, that love indeed does conquer all, that friendships matter and that family is family, no matter what.

China will be the largest World Economy by 2016

The OECD in a recent report indicated that by 2016, China will surpass the United States as the world's preeminent economy. This is no surprising, considering that for the past 40 years, China has been growing at more than 7% per year. 2016 is the year the dragon will finally come to roost. The bigger question is what does China want when it will, for all intents and purposes, finally be the world's number 1 economy? China's recent spats with its Asian neighbors has clearly demonstrated that like past empires and civilizations, it will flex its muscles, it will step where it wants, when it wants and however it wants. The only thing that smaller nations will have to do is to be constructive and creative in their responses. The Philippines is one such nation, of course, the country can never really confront a megalith like China, even now. It is simply too powerful, too large and too ambitious.

The Philippine government must be resourceful and adroit therefore, in defending and safeguarding its interests, especially its territorial integrity. The country might be small, weak and fragmented, but there is one thing I have always admired about us Filipinos, we are the perennial 'can do' guys. If we really want it, really crave it, really desire it, we have always, and always, against all odds, been able to accomplish what needs to be done.

China will ever more become enmeshed and entwined with the rest of the world. Even now, China produces almost every consumer goods sold in all countries. In fact, 75% of all the toys produced in the world today are made in China. The world will do well to welcome with prudence once again the rise to top of China, the incidentally also the world's longest continuing civilization.

The Pulpit of Ignorance: Pedophilia and Cardinal Napier

Facebook was abuzz about a week ago after a certain Cardinal Napier, from the Catholic Church of South Africa, articulated that pedophilia is not, as seen from the above picture, a criminal condition but rather a mental illness. Many people were, from the Facebook posts I saw, seething with heavenly indignation after hearing such moronic and obtuse insinuations. And rightly so, such medieval perspective are intolerable and expletive inducing in a contemporary 21st century milieu simply because most nations that believe in the rights of the children actually have enacted laws that criminalize having sexual intercourse, consensual or otherwise, with persons who are at in most countries below 18 years old.

From the way Cardinal Napier stated his words, I am just wondering whether he seems to imply that since it is "not" in his view a criminal offense, that such acts be nevertheless not condemned? And by extension, should then be left unpunished?

Assuming, arguendo, that indeed pedophilia is not a criminal offense, hence not a criminal condition, say in South Africa (maybe because they do not have criminal statutes punishing sexual intercourse with children below 18 years old), then he cannot suffuse to say that it is not A criminal offense and condition in other countries, lest of all most countries. Of course, I am assuming here that what Cardinal Napier actually meant was that pedophilia is even considered NORMAL in ALL countries. Most countries in fact consider sex with a certain group of people below a certain age, in most cases, as stated beforehand, below 18 years old. Except probably for some Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, where children as young as 8 can be legally married (hence in these countries it is NOT a criminal "condition" to actually copulate with a, say 9 year old, as long as of course the parties are married as defined by their tribal and religious tradition), most countries actually consider it a criminal condition.

Psychologists and psychiatrists are one in saying that although it is in fact a mental illness, most civilized people's also consider it a criminal condition in that it infringes on the rights of the child to adequately develop a normal self-concept and most of all, children have yet to develop a mature decision making perspective to adequately consent to sexual intercourse, especially since almost all sexual intercourse with children involves violence, fraud, intimidation, threat and abuse of trust and confidence of the one initiating the sex. This is what civilized peoples are trying to protect, the innocence of those of our society who have yet mastered the requisite skills to fend for what is best for them.

Such tragedy that such prince of the church would say something so uneducated and callous. Much like Benedict XVI's pronouncements in the early part of his papacy that the use of condoms actually SPREAD HIV-AIDS. The problem with the Catholic Church is that it keeps on making pronouncements in realms where it has no expertise to begin with.