WORDatTheNet

Home » Other Doctrines » Same-sex Relations in Reproductive Health Law

Same-sex Relations in Reproductive Health Law


Reproductive Health (RH) law or R.A 10354 was finally passed by the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives on December 19, 2012. On December 21, 2012, it was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III.

You don't see same sex relations in the Taoist temple. Look for it in RH law.

You don’t see same sex relations in the Taoist temple. Look for it in RH law. http://www.wordatthenet.com.

Immediately, prior thereto or on December 3, 2013, Typhoon Pablo, a Category 5 super typhoon with winds of 175 mph (280 km/h) killed more than 1,020, with 844 people missing in Mindanao, reported on December 16, 2012.

It was feared that fatalities exceeded the 1,268 confirmed dead after Typhoon Sendong or Washi hit the southern Philippines on December 16, 2011.

On November 8, 2013, Philippines was severely hit by Typhoon Yolanda, with 5,560 confirmed dead based on a report from the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) issued on November 26. Yolanda followed Cebu-Bohol earthquake, which happened last October 15, 2013.

A mere yearly coincidence? Four (4) major calamities in three (3) years, under President Benigno Aquino. What’s wrong? Can we  blame also the reproductive health law?Also, are the Filipinos still sure that President Aquino will survive another calamity? Maybe, Vice President Jejomar Binay should now be ready to take over.

Let us check, who is President Aquino in relation to Reproductive Health Law. Then, you decide.

President Aquino certifies the Reproductive Health bill as urgent legislation

The House of Representatives has already approved it on second reading but President Benigno Aquino III has certified passage of the bill as urgent, saying he wants an end to the division caused by the controversial measure.

Jill Beltran of Sun.Star Online reports Aquino confirmed on Thursday night that the RH bill is now an urgent piece of legislation. “I actually certified it as urgent,” he said.

Bills certified urgent are exempt from a Congressional rule that bills must go through three readings on three separate days.  The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the bill on third and final reading next week. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, in a press statement, said the Senate will vote on the measure on Monday.

(Sun.Star Online, Friday, December 14, 2012)

Unknown to the public is the insertion of same-sex relationship in the law, which is discussed in this article, including “onanism” and amendment to the traditional definition of  “parenthood“, which are to be discussed later. It is inserted in the definition of term for Reproductive Health (RH), when the law alleges: “This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.”

Among others, section 4 of R.A 10354, otherwise known as “An Act Providing for National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health”, provides:

(p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

Legally, there is a difference between the phrase “women and men” and “woman and man” sexual relations. In the latter, it definitely refers to a relation between man and a woman but in the former, it includes sexual relations of “woman to another woman” implied by pluralistic “women” and sexual relations of “man to another man” being likewise implied in pluralistic “men”. Considering the conjunction “and” between “Women” and Men”, the law logically implies that a “woman” or a “man” has respective equal rights related to sexual relations with another “woman” or “man”, respectively.

Above provision is further strengthened by the definition of “Gender Equality”, when the law provides for such sexual relations as a matter of rights:

(g) Gender equality refers to the principle of equality between women and men and equal rights to enjoy conditions in realizing their full human potentials to contribute to, and benefit from, the results of development, with the State recognizing that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. It entails equality in opportunities, in the allocation of resources or benefits, or in access to services in furtherance of the rights to health and sustainable human development among others, without discrimination.

The danger of the above provisions is that they legally attack marriage as an institution that is provided in the Family Code, when the law modified marriage”, which is a union between “man and woman” in the Code to union of “women” or  “men”, by way of repealing, modifying or amending any laws, except against abortion. As the constitution does not define marriage specifically as a union of man and woman, then the union of women or men would still be constitutional.

Its repealing clause, provides:

SEC. 29. Repealing Clause. – Except for prevailing laws against abortion, any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act including Republic Act No. 7392, otherwise known as the Midwifery Act, is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

Based on the above premises, the law, which was certified urgent by President Aquino when passed by Congress and urgently signed into law-that is, within two days upon receipt, would impliedly expose Mr. Aquino’s personality by allowing same-sex relationship to be inserted. If intentional-that is, he knows the legal implications of what he had signed into law, then it should speak by itself.  If he does not know the legal implication on what he had signed, then it should likewise speak for itself. Is there any deception, either sexual, social, moral, religious, political, legal, constitutional, etc, in both  circumstances?

What is wrong in same sex relations (if you profess to believe in God) is its being contrary to a commandment which says that:

22No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that.(Leviticus 18:22,TEV).

The verse is translated in New Living Translation, as follows:

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

which same-sex relation was personally made into law by President Benigno Aquino. Oh, what an accomplishment as a President!!!

Related articles:

 

>>>To Home Page to also proceed to The Forum

Advertisements

Archives

Categories

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: