SOGIE Bill Should Be Junked
by Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.D. (Harvard)
Member, Constitutional Commission, 1986
In their well-intentioned fight for the human rights of lesbians, gays, transgenders and bisexuals (LGTB), members of the Lower House have passed a bill that will violate some of the most fundamental human rights contained in our Constitution: the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religious belief, the freedom of speech and academic freedom. I hope the honourable members of the Senate will be able to prevent this series of violations of our Constitution (of which I was one of the framers) by significantly amending, if not junking outright the House version. The bill has been labelled SOGIE (Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity or Expression) and is now due for second reading in the Senate, which means the period for debates and amendments.
The House version is full of inaccurate or clearly erroneous assumptions. There is much talk about discrimination against gays and transgenders in Philippine society. One only has to look around and observe the proliferation of very successful and highly respected LGTB people in the entertainment world, media, fashion, and other fields in which Filipinos are well known for their creativity. There are even beauty and talent contests organised exclusively for them. Many of them are free to join mainstream talent shows and come out winners in a good number of them. Having resided in the Malate area around the Remedios Circle as a high school student at De La Salle, I observed how well homosexuals integrated in the community, even organizing their own Santacruzan and other religious processions. Except for gangsters who victimised all sorts of people whatever their sexual orientation, I never felt that there was discrimination against the gays of Malate.
As one of the framers of the Philippine Constitution, I find the following provisions, still retained in the Senate version, dangerous because they can violate the human rights of others:
Discriminatory practices: It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical to: a) Promote and encourage stigma on the basis of SOGIE in the media, in educational textbooks, and other medium; b) Include SOGIE, as well as the disclosure of sexual orientation, in the criteria for hiring, promotion, transfer, designation, work assignment, re-assignment, dismissal of workers, and other human resource movement and action performance review and in the determination of employee compensation, career development opportunities, training, and other learning and development interventions, incentives, privileges, benefits or allowances, and other terms and conditions of employment; c) Refuse admission or expel a person from any educational or training institution on the basis of SOGIE: Provided, however, that the right of educational and training institutions to determine the academic qualifications of their students or trainees shall be duly upheld; and d) Deny an applicant for or revoke, on the basis for SOGIE, any government license, authority, clearance, permit, certification, or other similar documents necessary to exercise a profession, business, or any other legitimate calling.
The above provisions may appear harmless at first sight. They, however, can lead to the violation of certain basic human rights safeguarded by our Constitution. First, there is the freedom of conscience. i do not even have to invoke any religious belief to express what I can arrive at by the use of natural reason alone when I make the observation that Nature is such that human beings (like others who belong to the animal kingdom) can be classified biologically as male or female. I can cite enough expert findings of scientists who will defend this view, even if there may be contrary opinions being espoused by some fringe scientists. Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech should give me the right to opine, on the basis of my scientific convictions, that LGBT are aberrations from the normal. As long as I respect the basic human rights of those whom I consider as exception to the rule of nature, I should be able to act according to my scientific belief that I should treat them differently from the non-LGBT crowd.
On the positive side, as is already being done by many employers, I may recommend people from the LGBT community to be employed as fashion designers, hairdressers, ballet dancers, script writers, entertainers, etc in which empirical evidence shows that they have a distinct talent advantage. In fact, having done a lot of research on the BPO-IT industry in the Philippines, I can attest to the empirical observation that a good number of BPO workers, especially the voice-oriented, belong to the LGBT crowd. On the contrary side, I will be wary in recommending the homosexuals to be pupils or teachers in schools for boys or to be seminarians studying for the priesthood, because of the moral dangers of sexual abuse. That is why, I strongly object to the provision that educational institutions should not able to refuse admission on the basis of sexual orientation. These institutions are just providing for the moral safety of their constituents. Let me be very frank: most of the child abuse scandals that have sullied the reputation of the Catholic Church could have been avoided if the seminaries were stricter in examining the sexual orientation of those who apply to study for the priesthood. For this reason, I think it wrong to specify only academic criteria for admission in educational institutions. Moral criteria can be even more important than academic qualifications for the welfare of the majority of the students.
As a writer and educator, I strongly object to the provision penalising opinions expressing the abnormality of certain sexual orientations, based on my scientific research. It would also violate my freedom of religion because my Catholic faith expressly states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that homosexual acts (not orientation in itself) are intrinsically evil (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357 -59). Because of this religious conviction, it should be lawful for an enterprise—whether commercial or educational—that is cultivating a corporate culture based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, to expel an employee that has been proved to entice co-employees to engage in homosexual acts. Every institution should be free to set moral standards according to the beliefs of the owners and managers. In fact, I have suggested to BPO managers to lay off their male workers who have been proved to engage in homosexual acts because of the strong empirical evidence that sexual intercourse among males is the most frequent source of HIV diseases. Such a policy would not be an act of discrimination but a prudent measure to safeguard the health of the employees as well as to enhance the productivity of the work force.
It must also be pointed out that when the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically morally evil, she is not discriminating against homosexuals. All other uses of sex that are outside marriage and are not open to the transmission of life are also morally evil. Thus homosexual acts are in the same category as masturbation, prostitution, adultery, fornication and the use of artificial contraceptives as immoral because all of these involve the use of sex that is not within God’s plan for marriage and the family. The degree of guilt will depend on the usual determinants of morality, i.e. whether or not there is full knowledge and full deliberation, as well as the circumstances surrounding the act. Among the conditions to be considered in judging the morality of homosexual acts are the absence of supportive parental relationships, false education, lack of normal sexual development, poor habits and even peer pressure. This stresses the importance of giving parents, guardians and teachers the moral authority to provide a healthy environment for the normal sexual development of children and the youth.
In the name of freedom of conscience and of religion, we should therefore strongly object to the House Version which stipulates that parents should be penalised if they prevent a child from exhibiting or expressing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Parents are endowed with the inalienable right to foster the right moral values among their children, according to their religious beliefs. Catholic parents who practise their faith will make sure that their children are helped to overcome any same sex orientation because they are concerned with the future moral welfare of their offspring. As mentioned above, the Catholic faith is very clear about the moral teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and can condemn a person to hell if unrepented. Parents are only thinking of the salvation of the souls of their children when they try their best to help their children to rid themselves of same sex attractions which could easily lead to their engaging in same sex acts when they come of age. Although not everyone will agree, there is enough evidence from behavioural sciences that same sex orientation can be cured. Parents should not be denied this hope that with the right upbringing practices, they can help their children who manifest same sex orientation early in life to cultivate what they consider the more normal sexual behaviour. It would be against their parental rights to deny them this right to include what they consider normal sexual behaviour as part of the character education of their children. Obviously, in practising character education, parents are never allowed to inflict or threaten to inflict bodily or physical harm against the child. This is already included in laws protecting children welfare and does not need separate legislation.
As an economics professor, I would strongly object to my being penalised for teaching or writing that LGBT behaviour will harm the future of the Philippine economy. I have written profusely on the economic crises and declines of practically all the advanced countries of both West and East because of very low fertility rates. Every economist knows about the demographic winter being faced by such countries as Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong as well as practically all Western European countries, except France. It is a no brainer that widely promoting same sex unions can lead to a big drop in fertility in the future since except for the very complicated practice of artificial insemination, these unions are usually childless. It would be against my academic freedom if I am prevented to express my objection to same sex unions because of this scientific observation I am making as an economist.
As a final note, let me be clear that nothing every justifies demonising, condemning or insulting a human being on the basis of his or sexual orientation. Pope Francis already set the example by answering “Who am I to judge?” when asked early in his pontificate what he thought about gays. The very fact that a person has same sex orientation does not mean that he or she is actually engaging in same-sex intercourse. He or she may be a very moral or disciplined person who, through human effort and with the help of the Sacraments or other sources of grace such as prayer and sacrifice, is actually avoiding homosexual acts. Therefore, those of us who have relatives, friends, employees and other personal contacts who manifest same sex orientation should deal with them with great respect and sympathy. It would be morally wrong to avoid dealing with them. As I wrote above, they can be some of the most talented and productive persons we can deal with. If, however, we have enough evidence that they are actually living a gay lifestyle (having same sex intercourse), those of who us who are parents and educators as well as employers building a desirable corporate culture should at least be wary that they do not corrupt by their personal example those who are under our care. Nothing will ever change the teaching of the Catholic church that same-sex intercourse is intrinsically evil. Society owes it to us practising Catholics (and may I add Muslims who are even stricter in this regard) to respect our right to safeguard the morals of the people who depend on us for guidance and advice. For all these reasons, I recommend that the Senate should junk the SOGIE bill handed to it by the Lower House. For comments, my email address is bernardo.villegas@uap.asia
Posts
