Saturday, May 29, 2004
Preference or orientation?
My officemate who confesses to be a sex maniac (code name: Ponch) is at it again. He breaks into the first few notes of a popular song (Chicago's Song for You) in an indubitably alpha-male baritone. Want you to know…, he intones. Then in a dazzling coloratura, he sings the next line, "I'm a man!!!..."
On better days, it was Obie who would molest all the macho men and 'pogi' guys in the office, saying, "Pare, pa-kiss nga." Or, "Pare, maghubad na tayo, walang malisya."
Ponch is always funny and fun to be with, but I strongly doubt if he's truly happy. I strongly doubt whether he's not angry.
What would he make, for instance, of MTRCB's calling gays (like him) and lesbians "abnormal" on account of some gossip TV shows trumpeting the marriage of two girls barely out of their teens?
If you believe that everyone has a gay side, then you believe that gayness is a matter of choice. That choice may have been unconscious, or subconscious. Or it may have been totally conscious, half-hearted or resolute the conscious choice may have been. In either case, the term 'sex preference' is warranted because a decision has been made by the individual. (Possible rebuttal: Can a fetus decide that early? I don't know, but a fetus is known to react to such stimuli as maternal traumas.)
On the other hand, if you believe that gayness is a gene, it is inevitable you'd believe that gayness is not a matter of choice but of circumstance, nature instead of nurture. In this case, the term 'sex orientation' may be deemed more accurate. (Possible point of refutation: Has science provided the evidence yet for a gay gene?)
In whichever case - preference or orientation, I can second-guess that Ponch would most probably recoil at the term 'abnormal.' So your choice was 'abnormal'? But can an individual choice, a personal choice, be abnormal? So you're genes are anomalous; does that make you an abnormal person? Maybe yes, but the more crucial question is, does that make you less of a person? Are your private love interests in particular a shameful thing and not to be discussed in public, esp. on primetime TV?
Unavoidably, this leads us to examine the definition of the word 'abnormal.'
If 'abnormal' means a departure from the norm, whether above or below, then the use of the term by the MTRCB is justified. 'Abnormal' can be used in a clinical manner, without prejudgment or moral bias or any blinders. 'Abnormal' can merely mean 'atypical.' If the word is used by the MTRCB in this spirit, then there is no malice involved in its public utterance. Look, two men having sex will never produce a zygote, after all.
One concedes, however, that words are not just words; they are freighted with meaning, lots of it. And 'abnormal' is certainly one such highly nuanced word. It runs the gamut - from 'anomalous' to 'defective' to 'deviant' to 'freakish' and 'perverted.' And that's just for starters.
The MTRCB has not just made a terrible failure in diplomacy. It unduly placed gays and lesbians in an antagonistic position. It's a good thing it has retracted its harsh statement.
The key words in dealing with the gay community must be, at the minimum, tolerance, and, at the most, understanding and respect. Gays are already confused with who and what they are; government and society should not rub it in their face all the more, or it would be like pouring alcohol on a fresh wound.
***
If things are seen from the reverse, too, we must admit that trouble also brews when those at the margins foist themselves as the new norm. Gays should also accept that gayness will always be a minority because that's how things are: Most male and female zygotes - granting decisions are made at the zygote stage - choose to be hetero-. Male and female genes normally turn out to be what they are expected to be. Gays cannot just come out in the open and do things a majority of the population consider to be vulgar and scandalous and then expect to be respected and admired; they cannot just flout convention and expect to be loved back! What about gays' respect for the prevailing sensibility?
Yet even when homosexuality is a preference and not a heritable locus, i.e., essentially a choice, my thinking now is, society, the state, and religions, must ultimately respect that choice because it is a personal choice, and no crime is being committed against anyone outside that choice (unless religion sees that choice as a crime against oneself). Respect may not come in the form of legalizing gay marriages, but at least we can all improve upon how we view others who are 'differently abled.' Hopefully, that view will also be reflective of the vocabulary in contemporary usage. This is not a matter of being politically correct, it is a matter of respect for individual freedom and liberty. (I personally eschew political correctness for its tendency to erase the traditional dualities of the universe; PC is monistic, period.)
Lastly, since gayness and lesbianism remain attended by scientific mystery, the least we can do is avoid, if not stop, looking at homosexuality as a form of communicable disease, or worse, something inherently criminal, intrinsically immoral, or decidedly sinful.
Compassion for the differently-abled is something one learns not just from such contemporary works as Harry Potter, X-Men, and pink festival movies. It is as basic as being human and as essential as having a heart.
