Kapag papasok o lalabas sa MRT tapos siksikan tapos di mo madaan sa ‘excuse me’, kelangan mo lang e yung mga siko mo. I spread mo yung siko mo na parang magchi-chicken dance ka. Tapos yun yung ipang-sagi mo sa tao para tumabi sila. Pero kung di ka pa din makalabas o makapasok eto na:
Pag di pa rin gumana, apakan mo yung paa nila. Pede rin sa mukha like this:
The position I will be defending is this: Homosexual behaviour is morally permissible in the same situations in which heterosexual behaviour is morally permissible; i.e., there is no qualitative difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex. I will be critiquing the position “all homosexual sex is immoral”.
First, a brief word on marriage. One might be inclined to object to my argument on the grounds that any sort of sex is only permissible within marriage, and since homosexuals cannot by definition get married, then homosexual sex is never morally permissible. This, however, must be defended. Why think homosexuals cannot marry? Perhaps because of religious reasons – I will address religious concerns in the second section of this essay.
That being said, I will begin my case by offering an argument for the moral permissibility of some instances of homosexual behaviour. I will then defend the premises of my argument; first by discussing the beneficial results of homosexual behaviour, then by refuting common objections to such practices.
Premise 1: In cases where the good-making properties of a behaviour are much greater than the bad-making properties, then that behaviour is prima facie morally permissible.
Premise 2: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships where the good-making properties are much greater than the bad-making properties.
Premise 3: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships that are prima facie morally permissible.
Premise 4: If there is a prima facie support for the permissibility of something, and there are no good reasons to support its impermissibility, then it should be deemed permissible.
Premise 5: There are no good reasons to suppose this subset of homosexual sexual relationships are impermissible.
Conclusion: This subset of homosexual sexual relationships is permissible.
The “set” referred to in premise 2 is all homosexual sexual relationships in which the participants are similarly situated to a heterosexual couple participating in morally permissible sexual acts.. For the purposes of this essay, I will take this to mean only those homosexual sexual relationships which can be considered committed, monogamous, and healthy/disease-free. I will exclude acts of rape, acts of infidelity, acts which may result in contraction of an STD, and other such behaviours. In other words, there is nothing about homosexual behaviour that renders it intrinsically immoral; that is, there is nothing that makes homosexual behaviour immoral just because it is homosexual.
In defense of 1, consider an analogy. Imagine you walk past a restaurant, and you see through the window that someone is eating a stick of celery. The man eating the celery has a smile on his face – it is obvious that he is enjoying it. Furthermore, you know that celery is fairly healthy for the body; it’s low in fat and calories. Now imagine that you enter the restaurant and speak with the man to find out more information. He tells you, “Oh, I absolutely love to eat celery. Not only is it delicious, but it’s good for you. And I eat only the finest – fresh, clean celery; only from this restaurant.”
It becomes clear that, at least on the surface, eating celery is innocuous, and should be considered morally permissible. Barring some not-so-obvious reasons, we can safely conclude that there is nothing immoral about the man eating the celery. In such a situation, given what we know about the circumstances, we would lack justification to conclude that eating celery is immoral – we cannot say things are immoral “just because”.
Love is all you need
So, what are the great goods which homosexual behaviour results in?
The first good-making property is intimacy. Sex between partners (at least within the context of a committed relationship) fosters feelings of closeness and love toward one’s partner. It is also the case that when homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships have children (either by adoption, artificial insemination, or other means), the benefits of the intimacy created by sex are passed on to the child in the form of a more loving, caring environment for child-rearing.
This also solves another current problem we have – children without parents. Currently, there are many children in orphanages and foster homes. As homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other naturally, they are good candidates for adoption. This gives these children a loving, caring home to grow up in. Research shows that children raised by homosexual parents do just as well as their peers raised by heterosexual parents. Professor of pediatrics Ellen C. Perrin testifies, “The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way…”In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”
Sandra B. Stier testifies that “marriage would be a way to tell ‘our friends, our family, our society, our community, our parents…and each other that this is a lifetime commitment…we are not girlfriends. We are not partners. We are married.’”; and Kristin M. Perry that “marriage would provide her with what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and family.” When individuals provide testimony about their own mental and emotional states, we generally take them at their word (assuming they are not mentally ill). Richard Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony can be applied to such a situation – “with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eye-witnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.”
We should certainly take the testimony of the above individuals to be true; they are not mentally ill, and there is no reason to suppose they are lying. It seems true that these two individuals at least, and likely many similar homosexual couples, view their relationships as ones based on trust, intimacy, and love. Indeed, their relationship is likely stronger, more beneficial to them, and more conducive to child-rearing than some heterosexual relationships.
Another good-making property is marriage. Keeping in mind that the topic of this essay is “Homosexual behaviour is immoral”, one can count not just sexual activities, but also homosexual marriages as “behaviour” (and of course marriages routinely include sex). It is certainly the case that allowing homosexuals to marry provides economic benefits to society – weddings are often expensive, and provide a good amount of cash flow into the economy; both from the marriage itself and from subsequent marriage-related purchases (wedding gifts, larger homes, etc.) To give a real world example, economist Lee Badget is of the opinion that “Proposition 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children”, and that “Proposition 8 has imposed economic losses on the state of California”.
I am what I am
However, perhaps the most important good-making property has to do with one’s very identity. It is agreed upon by almost all psychologists that sexual orientation is in fact not a choice – the causes of homosexuality are complex, and changing orientation is difficult if not impossible.
Despite claims from individuals with personal interests in showing that one’s orientation can be changed, it is the consensus that even attempting to change one’s sexuality can be quite damaging to mental health, and as such it is advised against – rather, homosexuals are encouraged to accept themselves. Actor David Yost, for example, spent two years in an ex-gay ministry; after which time he suffered a “nervous breakdown” resulting in a five-week hospital stay. The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association is that “…some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable”. This is a very important good-making property – accepting one’s orientation involves pursuing relationships which (usually) include sex. Of course, we could say that exactly when such an individual should or should not have sex is up for debate – but not that sex should remain unavailable to the homosexual in all situations.
There are also other (less important) good-making properties. Pleasure is one. Homosexuals derive pleasure from having sex with their partners. Some other minor good-making properties include stress relief and cardiovascular exercise. As these can be obtained in other ways, I mention them only in passing.
Rectifying rectal misinformation
One of the more common criticisms of homosexual behaviour is that it has negative health effects, both physical and mental. However, research into modern medicine and psychology show that this is simply not the case.
The first form of this criticism involves anal sex. It is a common misconception that most homosexuals regularly engage in anal sex. In fact, many do not – and many heterosexuals do. A poll from the Center For Disease Control shows that while only 6 percent of males age 15-44 have had “any same-sex sexual contact”, 34 percent have had anal sex. Furthermore, 30 percent of females age 15-44 have had anal sex. It is a simple fact that anal sex is not exclusively homosexual.
It is another misconception that anal sex is often physically damaging. For example, anal sex is not a recognized cause of fecal incontinence (inability to control bowel movements); while childbirth is. While it is true that anal sex is riskier than oral or vaginal sex, it is not nearly as risky as some would like to say. When performed correctly (with an STD-free partner, slowly, and with a condom), the risks fall well within the “acceptable” range. In any case, even if it can be shown that anal sex leads to physical damage of the body 100 percent of the time, this is at best a case against anal sex itself, not homosexual sex – homosexuals have other types of sex available to them.
Hit me, beat me, make me do my taxes
Some individuals and organizations claim that there is a higher rate of domestic abuse among homosexuals. While this may or may not be true (statistics on this are ambiguous, as most cases are never reported), this is merely a correlation – it needs to be shown that there is something about being gay that makes one intrinsically more prone to abuse. Furthermore, here are some interesting statistics for abuse rates in various groups:
heterosexual – 17 percent, gay/lesbian – 28 percent, bisexual – 41 percent, married – 13 percent, single – 13 percent, single no children – 19 percent, separated divorced or widowed – 41 percent.
gay men – 15 percent, lesbians – 11 percent
gay and lesbian couples – 25-33 percent
As one can see, different studies have concluded very different abuse rates. However, here’s a reductio for this argument:
1) If a population has a significantly higher abuse rate than the heterosexual population, being a practicing member of that population is always immoral. 2) The population “homosexuals” has a significantly higher abuse rate than the heterosexual population. 3) Being a practicing member of the population “homosexuals” is always immoral. 4) The population “separated, divorced, or widowed” has a significantly higher abuse rate then the heterosexual population. 5) Being a practicing member of the population “separated, divorced, or widowed” is always immoral.
The group in premise 4 can be replaced with any group that a study shows has high rates of abuse/violence. We should be wary when one cites statistics to support such an argument – remember, correlation does not equal causation, and statistics can vary. Of course I agree that domestic abuse of any kind is immoral, however statistics regarding domestic abuse cannot show that a certain lifestyle is always immoral. the 72 percent of gay/lesbian individuals in this study should not be deemed immoral just because 28 percent of their population experiences domestic abuse. It’s also easy to just say “Homosexual sex which occurs in abusive relationships is immoral, while homosexual sex in stable, loving relationships is not”.
You’re my favorite damn disease
Another common criticism of homosexual sex involves STD rates. It is claimed that homosexuals have a much higher risk of contracting an STD. This is highly misinformed. The average prevalance of STDs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV) among men who have sex with men is about 9%. While it is true that the prevalence of STDs is higher here than in heterosexual males, three things must be noted.
First, the difference is actually only a few percent. While 9 percent is twice as high as 4.5 percent, it’s still only a small difference; the risk is still low. Second, in 2008, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis rates were highest among african-americans, representing 49, 71, and 49 percent of total cases, respectively. If an argument against homosexual sex from STD rates works, then an argument against sex with african-americans from STD rates works as well. The implied syllogism in the argument from STDs seems to be this:
1. If an action is likely to result in contracting an STD, that action is immoral. 2. Homosexual sex is likely to result in contracting an STD. 3. Homosexual sex is immoral.
However, considering the STD rates in african-americans cited above, we may replace premise 2:
2’. Sex with an african-american is likely to result in contracting an STD.
thus leaving us with a morally repugnant conclusion: that it is immoral to have sex with an african-americans. Third, there are actually (as of 2005), no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV.
This is also irrelevant. It is important to note (although this should not even need to be stated) that homosexual acts do not create the pathogens which infect one with HIV and other STDs. Rather, one contracts an STD by having sex with someone who has that STD already. So, this is at best an argument for safe sex, not an argument against homosexual sex – as well as an argument I completely agree with.
So, if we restrict our moral scope to the question “Is it immoral for a committed, monogamous, disease-free homosexual couple to have sex?”, objections based on perceived dangers of anal sex, domestic abuse, and risk of contracting an STD fall flat. What other objection to such acts might one give?
Breaking the natural law
Another criticism of homosexual sex is the so-called “natural law” objection. This objection, in essence, says two things:
1) We should only use our faculties and abilities for their intended, primary, or natural purpose. 2) The intended, primary, or natural purpose of sex is for procreation.
The issue here is what is meant by language such as intended, primary, and natural.
First, ‘intended’. To assign intent to something requires personhood. When we say “a corkscrew is intended to open wine bottles”, what we mean is that a corkscrew is for opening wine bottles. This is its purpose. If no persons existed (and yet somehow a corkscrew still did), then the object would not be intended for anything – it would just be.
So, who decides what sex is intended for? Perhaps God – but I’ll get to that later. If not God, then it is surely us, ourselves. Thus, if homosexuals decide that sex is intended for something other than procreation, then it is. It cannot be nature – there is no “ought” in nature, there is only “is”. So, this line of reasoning can only possibly work if God is the one deciding the intent.
What about primary purpose? We use other faculties and abilities for non-primary purposes all the time, and no one ever questions it. We use our legs and feet for leg presses in addition to walking, for example. So, what’s wrong with “hijacking” sex for non-procreative purposes?
There are also purposes to sex other than procreation. These can be referred to as “natural purposes”, or more simply, “effects”. Surely we would not say a situation in which a heterosexual couple has sex only for procreative purposes is equal to or better than a situation in which the couple uses sex for procreative purposes, and also experiences pleasure and intimacy. So, even if it is the case that it is better for one to use sex for all of its functions (procreation + everything else), what’s the problem with dropping the procreation function? Dropping procreation might be less good (just as donating a thousand dollars to charity is less good than donating two thousand), but I fail to see why it would be bad.
Through a glass, ignorantly
Despite the supposed “secular arguments” against homosexual acts, we notice one very telling fact: these secular arguments are posited almost exclusively by people with prior religious motivations.
What would we expect to see if the secular case against homosexuality worked? Let’s use another issue as a case study: the issue of the death penalty. There are people from all walks of life against the death penalty – Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and atheist; and they generally all use similar arguments. This is not the case with regard to homosexuality. The arguments against it are all but quarantined to religious fundamentalism. Why is it that so very few liberal Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists are convinced by these arguments? Probably because they just don’t work. There seems to be no working secular case against homosexual acts.
When you assume
Other than natural law, the most common objection to homosexual behaviour has to do with one’s religion. As the religious portion of the people reading this will be mostly Christian, I will focus on Christian objections exclusively; although some of these objections might also work for adherents of other religions.
The objection consists of citing verses from the Bible which (implicity or explicity) point to divine commands from God prohibiting homosexual behaviour.
While such a case against homosexuality may seem convincing to the believer, there are a number of hidden assumptions that not everyone is going to accept. Here is a list, in order of logical progression (from general to specific):
persons exist -> some sort of deity exists -> that deity is a “personal God” -> Divine Command Theory is true -> that deity is Yahweh -> Jesus Christ is divine -> the Bible is the inspired word of God -> the Bible is infallible -> the correct interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is that all homosexual acts are immoral
There are a great many assumptions here – and all of them must be adequately defended before a Christian can make a convincing case for the immorality of all homosexual behaviour. Such a case will not convince a Buddhist, as Buddhists deny actual personhood. Such a case will not convince a Deist, as deists deny that a “personal God” exists. Such a case will not even convince a liberal Christian, as liberal Christians deny either the interpretation assumption, or the infallible Bible assumption.
Now, I could critique any of these assumptions in order to defeat the Christian case against homosexuality. However, I will be extremely generous here. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of the above propositions is true.
Past, present and future
1. God’s commands hold if and only if those commands benefit us in some way. 2. God’s commands prohibiting all homosexual acts no longer benefit us. 3. God’s commands prohibiting all homosexual acts no longer hold.
First, some clarification. By “command”, I mean any rule, law, prohibition, obligation, or moral statement that can be evidenced via scripture as being declared, either implicitly or explicitly, by God. By “benefit”, I mean to say that such a command has some positive influence or result such that we are better off following it than not.
There is biblical evidence that God’s commands can, and have, changed. For example, in Genesis 4:3-4, Cain and Abel offer sacrifices to God – No one nowadays would even think of arguing that this is permissible. Furthermore, we were not required to have faith in Christ before (roughly) 5 B.C., while we are now. Other commands only apply to certain groups of people at certain times, in certain situations (see Hebrew ritual laws). So, we can establish that at least possibly, commands against homosexuality no longer apply. We can also run this argument with any of God’s other commands – as a thought experiment, replace “prohibiting all homosexual acts” with “prohibiting the eating of pork”, and the argument still works.
How are we to tell whether they still apply? Simple – look at whether such commands still benefit us, either individually or as a society. Let’s look at some facts (see previous section):
A) Homosexuals can love each other. B) Homosexuals can have safe sex. C) Homosexuals can raise children.
Looking at these, and other related facts, one is now rather hard-pressed to think of a benefit that a command against all homosexual behaviour might have today. One might say that the command still holds in order for humanity to continue to procreate and thus keep the species going, however this objection simply does not work. Only about 8-10 percent of the population is homosexual – it’s not as if removing/voiding this command would cause a huge chunk of the population to become exclusively homosexual. This percentage has, as far as we can tell, remained roughly constant in most societies throughout recorded history.
Furthermore, even if the entire human population (for whatever reason) suddenly became homosexual, humanity would not even then die out. Homosexuals, despite their attraction to the same sex, still desire to raise children. Just like a sterile couple who relies on sperm donation and/or a surrogate mother to reproduce, so too can homosexual couples reproduce (and, just like the sterile couple, will not love or care for their children any less due to the method of procreation). It seems that, today, the procreation rate would be wholly unaffected by lifting a command contra-homosexuality.
Now, one might object to premise 1 on the grounds that the purpose of God’s commands is not to benefit us. One might say that, as Calvinism states, God’s commands serve the purpose of bringing him glory. To this I can only say that there are good reasons for thinking, even if one is a Christian, that Calvinism is false. Here’s a brief sketch of how one might go about showing this:
1 Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”. Now, obviously not all people are saved – this fact must be accounted for. Under non-Calvinistic theologies, this is accounted for via libertarian free will. Since Calvinism does not admit libertarian free will, (pending other theodicies) either Calvinism is false, or Christianity as a whole is false.
While much more can be said on whether Calvinism is true and/or correct interpretation of scripture, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this essay. Furhermore, one could also simply argue that Christianity itself is false (perhaps via Schellenberg’s divine hiddenness argument), or that God does not exist, or attack any of the above assumptions. However, these are topics for another time. My argument above will hopefully convince at least some of my readers that some instances of homosexual behaviour are permissible even within Christianity.
Conclusion: All good things..
To summarize: if there are many good things about homosexual behaviour, and no good reasons to think it is immoral, then we should conclude that homosexual behaviour is indeed permissible, at least in certain circumstances. I have shown that there are some very good things that result from homosexual behaviour; among these are intimacy, identity, child-rearing environments, economic benefits, and pleasure. I have also attempted to refute some of the more common arguments for thinking it is immoral; such as health concerns about anal sex, STD and abuse rates, natural law/proper fuction objections, and religious objections.
Habang nasa jeepney ako kanina pauwi sa may QC circle, biglang nagsigawan yung mga tao kasi natalsikan sila ng tubig, yung talsik na galing sa ibang sasakyan(take note nasa loob kame ng jeepney at nasa harap ako katabi ni manong drayber). Grabe lang humarurot yung kotse kaya siguro nagkaroon ng power splash talaga. Siyempre ako din, natalsikan kaya lang natakpan ako ni manong drayber kaya sa kanya talaga napunta yung power splash. Parang naligo lang si manong. Ako naman parang talsik sa log jam ng EK ang inabot. Ang weird kasi hindi naman masyadong madaming tubig sa daan kaya hindi namin alam kung pano nagkaroon ng power splash don. Tawanan nalang kaming lahat, punas dito at punas doon.
Wala lang, nakakatawa kasi diba nasa loob kame ng sasakyan nabasa pa rin kame. haha.
“Sana bago magsalita/mag-comment sana pinag-iisipan at huwag sana mang-husga kasi baka bumalik sa iyo ang sinasabi mo. Ito marahil ang problema ng Pilipinas ngayon, maraming PASSIVE, magagaling magsalita pero kapag hinukay ang katotohanan personal/sariling interes ang pinagmumulan. Halos karamihan ay sariling adhikain lang ang alam at walang paki-alam o concern para sa iba. Patuon sa sarili at bulag sa kapakanan ng iba. There are many biases (e.g.religion, culture, gender,etc.) and because of these we have to seek for ”GOODNESS” that leads to ”TRUTH”. Magagaling ang Pinoy, tamang perspektibo lang marahil ang kailangan.”
Sense of humor - Unang-una to. Ayoko naman sa mga taong boring. Boring na nga ako tapos boring pa yung makakasama ko. Mas gusto kong tumawa. Ang hirap kasi magpatawa you know.? haha.
Madalas akong tahimik kasi nagmamasid lang ako, naghahanap ng kahit anong nakakatuwang bagay. Sabi nga ng mga friends ko, baliw daw ako kasi natawa akong mag-isa minsan. haha.
Appreciation - Siyempre gusto ko kino-compliment ako sa mga nagagawa kong maganda o pinasasalamatan ako sa mga bagay na ginagawa ko para sa kanya. Sino ba namang tao ang ayaw sa compliment or simpleng thank you?
Family-oriented ka dapat.
Matalino - Hindi yung matalinong pang-akademiko, dapat yung talinong pilosopo o talinong artistic. K?
Marunong manamit / Good-looking - Opposite ko na naman. Hindi ako magaling manamit at mas lalong hindi ako good-looking. Optional lang tong last. (Optional kunware. haha)
PS. Optional nga lang talaga yung last pero yun yung una ko talagang napapansin siyempre. At hindi ko alam kung pano ko to sasagutin, kung to win me as a friend ba o to win me as a lover? as a lover nalang yung mga sagot ko.
Discrimination happens to us – that’s you with an s.
Maraming pwedeng gawin para solusyonan ang diskriminasyon. I guess, isa na don yung kanta ng Buklod na ni-revive ni Bamboo – na kailangang baligtarin ang tatsulok para tayong mga nasa ibaba ang nasa tuktok. O diba, parang simpleng inverted pink triangle lang? Hindi madali. Pero pwede. Pwede.
I contemplated on whether I should write this or not. It has only been a few days since I came out to some of the most important people in my life. Among all of them, there is one story I would like to share. Cliche as it seems, it is how I came out to my Mom. This post is quite long so bear with me. Nobela to.
And here is how the story goes…
More than a week ago, I changed my Facebook status from ‘single’ to ‘in a relationship’. It was something that caused quite a stir among my friends and family. Apparently, me being in a relationship is such a huge deal for them. A lot of people commented, reacted, asked. One of them was my Mom.
“Who’s your girlfriend?”, she asked me over the phone.
“Oh that? It’s nothing don’t mind that”, I answered.
She noticed that I didn’t want to talk about it so she dropped the topic. A few days after that, she came to Manila. A few hours after she arrived, she was in my room playing Farmville. I was watching TV. She asked me again,
“Who is your girlfriend?”
“No one, don’t take that seriously”, I answered.
“Why don’t you wanna tell me? Is she ugly? Is she stupid? Is she poor? What?”
“No its not that.”
“Tell me. I thought we were close, you could tell me anything.”
“Mom…its…complicated”, I answered with a sigh.
“Try me”, she insited.
“No”, I firmly said.
“Why? Are you worried I will get mad? Are you worried about something? I don’t have hypertension or anything you know”, she said trying to feign humor.
“You might have if I tell you the story.”
“Just tell me c’mon.”, she said without looking at me, being too engrossed with Farmville.
I fell silent and I just looked at her while she was harvesting her crops. I wanted to tell her. I could feel my heart beating so fast, it felt like a thousand drums were pounding on my chest. I took a deep breath.
“It’s now or never”, I told myself.
I pulled my mom close to me and hugged her really tight. I lay my head on her shoulder and I was stopping myself from crying.
“What is it anak? What’s wrong?”, she asked.
I didn’t respond.
“Anak you can tell me anything. Did you do something wrong? Is something bothering you?”
I started crying silent tears.
“Anak I am your Mom. I only want you to be happy and I will understand you for whatever it is you have done”, she said reassuringly.
“Mom I don’t know how to tell you this…I don’t know how or where to start so I’ll just say it out right”, I suddenly said.
“Mom…I don’t have a girlfriend. I have a boyfriend”, I said and at that moment I broke down in tears.
My mom without wasting a second hugged me and said that she already knew.
She explained it to me. She already knew. Apparently even as a child, she wished that I would be gay because a gay son would never leave her and would put her above everything else. She said that it was a part of her that was too selfish to share me with another woman.
My Mom said that she was raised by my grandpa who was not her biological father but was gay. She said that because of him, she saw that gay men can be more decent than straight men and that there was nothing wrong with being gay specially in this day and age. She added that she saw the life my grandpa led, how blessed and happy he was because he was gay.
It made me feel so much better.
“Im sorry Momma”, I said, voice a bit cracking.
“There is nothing to be sorry about. When you told me, did I look surprised? Did I look shocked?”, she asked, “I already knew it anak and I know that it is something very private and very hard for you to say so all I’ve been waiting for is for you to tell me. I did not want to be presumptuous, I did not want to catch you off guard. I wanted you to tell me when you were ready.”
I could not stop crying at that point. Was I dreaming? Was all of this real? Was my Mom actually telling me these things?
“I’m happy that you told me the truth. I am relieved. Just because you are gay, it does not mean that I will love you any less. I love you more because you told me the truth and I now how hard it is to admit something like this. I know what a relief it is because you’ve been harboring this secret inside you for a long time.”
Every time my Mom talked, every word she said, all I did was look at her in the eyes. I did not see anger. I did not see disappointment. I did not see remorse. I only saw relief.
The conversation became lighter eventually. My mom said that she does not see me marrying a girl and that if that day would come, she wont break down and stop the wedding because she won’t be able to accept that.
“When I saw that you changed your FB status, the first thing that came to my mind was ‘poor girl’ because I did not know it was a guy. But now that I know, I’m much more relieved. I mean, if it was a girl and she loves you then it’s her problem because I know that you are gay, and besides, ako lang ang babae sa buhay mo no!”, she said.
My mom assured me that nothing would change. She gave me advice on how to handle relationships and all that. She also said that I should know that there would be criticisms, there would be reactions and that I should be ready for that. I told her I already was.
She asked me about my boyfriend and that if he was my first.
“He’s not. You’ve already met two of my ex-boyfriends actually and they’ve also been to the house”, I said.
She knew exactly who I was talking about and for their sake, I won’t mention their names here.
We had a short conversation about my exes and I told her why we broke up. She knew that I dont talk to them anymore but the details we’re always shady. Now, everything made more sense to her.
“So tell me about your boyfriend. What does he do? How old is he? Is he still studying?”
“He’s 23, he’s working and he’s a cum laude. He’s smart, he’s good looking and he loves me a lot”, I replied.
“Does he have a Facebook account? What is it? Show me his picture”, my mom demanded.
“So I’d know what he looks like and I’ll see kung may malalait ako sa kanya”, she said laughing.
I thought for a second and I opened his picture which was saved on my desktop.
“Ooohhhh he’s cute. Disente manamit. Good ah. At least marunong kang pumili”, she suddenly blurted out.
I couldn’t help but laugh out loud.
She said that she’s happy that I’m happy and that she’s glad I found someone but she lay down some ground rules.
Bawal ang live-in.
Conduct yourself properly in public.
And…if you break up…move on. Let go. What doesnt destroy you will make you stronger. You should know that.
“Malamang”, I told myself. I just nodded.
“Tama na nga to, I’m not done harvesting yet”, she suddenly said.
“Ma, I wonder what will Papa and his relatives say when they find out?”, I asked innocently.
She burst out into laughter.
“Oh yeahhh”, she said, “Well anyway, it’s not like they’ve done anything for you, so they have no right to react”.
It’s been days since we had this conversation. Nothing has changed. We’ve actually become closer. The only difference is that I’m happier than I’ve ever been. I’ve already told most of my close friends, and all of them accepted me with open arms.
Coming out is hard. Coming out is scary, its terrifying, it downright nerve wracking. But I am happy and thankful that my friends and my mom have made it so easy for me. This is not what I expected, not at all. So for everyone out there who’s afraid to come out, I’m not forcing you to come out, but let me tell you that when you do, it is at that moment when you realize who your true friends are and how much your family loves you.
Now I can sleep soundly at night. Now it no longer bothers me. Now I have everything I could ever want and more.
Now I am out of Narnia…and it feels so much better…
Ang dami kong mura these days. Gumagaan yung loob ko pag nagmumura. Nawawala yung depression ko pag nagmumura. Pampawala ng GV. Pampa-alis ng stress. haha. Laging may ‘talaga’ pag sinasabi ko yan mga words na yan..
They say it’s bad but I’m perfectly good at it. Chos! ano daw?
Laro tayo. Kaso noob lang ako. level 5 nga lang yung account ko e. haha. O diba? pede na akong magtayo ng guild? chos! haha. Send me your garena usernames.
Para sa mga naiinis sa dota. May kasabihan nga, if you can’t beat em join em. haha. Madali lang naman matutunan yung game e.
Ngayong college lang naman ako natuto maglaro. Napag-experimetuhan lang kame ng mga boys na college friends namin na turuan maglaro nito (lage kasi akong sumasama sa mga girls pag nage-SM sila tuwing mahaba ang breaktime). Nakakasawa naman sa SM kaya yon ti-nry namin mag-dota. Tapos every breaktime na yon. Sa computer shop na ang diretso pag breaktime. BOYS vs. GIRLS lage ang labanan(minsan lang yung random kampihan).Minsan yung pustahan e bayad PC rent. Minsan naman e tinapay at RC. Lage kong ka-team ang mga babae. Andaya. Chos! haha. Minsan lang naman kame manalo over sa boys pag nage-experiment sila ng heroes. haha. Kakaiba kasi yung asaran habang naglalaro. Ang saya lang.
I love dota kahit noob lang ako. There’s always room for improvement naman e. :]