Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Enrile is Inevitably, Anti-Gay Sex

Top, versa, bottom? Either way, every one of us sure don't have ourselves an ovum for sperms to penetrate.

Why the sudden interest in women's ova? Well, after encountering a Tumblr blog post from my friend Ghing (http://kidaokagee.tumblr.com/), I read an article in Senatory Pia Cayetano (PSC - Principal author for Senate Bill 2865: National Reproductive Health Act of 2011) "RH debates explore the unknown" which cited quotations of our "honorable" Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (JPE).




Before anything else, here's a short background on Senator JPE.

  • 87 years of age
  • A devout Catholic
  • A military man
  • Has been in politics since the 70s
I have nothing against the good senator but I seriously question his statements during the interpellation of the senate bill with PSC.

The main thing that concerns me is his very strict point of view that our reproductive cells have life and that ejaculating a sperm with no intention to have it meet with an egg is already considered an "interference with the production of life".

The sperm of a man cannot fertilize any egg, not the egg of a whale, or a lizard, or a bird, or a fish, but only the egg of a woman. And neither can the egg of a woman be fertilized by any other sperm except the sperm of a man, so that these two elements must be together to create life. But each one of them has life. There is no question about that because they have mobility: They move; they develop. - JPE 
(Senate Transcripts - 09/21/11)

And by that he says that there is life in a sperm cell and thus ejaculating it outside the vagina is abortion. So the question remains, what then of gay sexual contact? Are we committing abortion when we make love?

There are a lot of other social and gender issues that have been carelessly trampled on by the Senator  if the posted released Senate transcripts from PSC's website is to be believed.


“In the coconut farm areas, I have yet to see a woman climbing a coconut tree to gather coconuts.”

“If we go to the case of our social structure, in the case of farmers, in the rural areas, the human beings plowing in the field – to plant rice, to plant corn, or to plant crops – are all men. Of course the women, they help in harvesting sometimes. But most of the time these are the functions of the farmers.”

“In the case of fishing, the fishermen are mostly men. In the case of lumbering, this is all the function of men…to earn a living for their families.”

“In the case of workers, most of our workers in the country are men, who feed their families, because that’s the nature of the genders: The women are supposed to stay at home and tend to the problems of the home and the children, and the men go out, risk their lives in order to earn a living. So one compensates the other.”  - JPE
(Senate Transcripts - 09/28/11)

What I'm most concerned about is the train of logic that would eventually unveil and be put to action if and when JPE is allowed his arguments not merely against the RH Bill but also for any other gender and sexually related legislation.

As homosexuals, if we cannot express our love without breaking the "Natural process" how then are we to express devotion to our partner? Are we not allowed such privilege? I am a firm believer that life is precious and suggesting that sperms have life (in the meta-ethical sense) makes me a deliberate killer by not sinking my sperm to an egg. Such neanderthal beliefs have no place in our society.




In a senate where there are only three women and no (admitted) gay men, I wonder how well represented really are we?

1 comment:

theurbanomad said...

Dirty Chauvinist Bastard.