Home » Other Doctrines
Category Archives: Other Doctrines
After misusing and/or abusing the normal use of some parts of their own body and/or body of another person, are Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders (LGBTs) entitled to invoke their alleged human rights to legally fight for same-sex marriage? Or are they guilty of violating the real human rights, in the first place?
Before settling the raised issues, let us try discussing rights in general and human rights in particular.
What are rights?
“Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. (more…)
The unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage becomes obvious, if the society understands ‘what is sex’, ‘what is marriage,’ what is a constitution’ and ‘how the latter was adopted by different nations to govern their respective national behaviors’. Specifically, same-sex proponents are invoking their alleged constitutional rights but forgetting the fact that the ‘types of sex and marriage’ they are promoting are not within the ambit of the present constitutions.
In fact, same-sex marriage is a misnomer or a misplaced terminology or ideology. In short, same-sex marriage, which is even bereft of any sexual basis, is grossly unconstitutional.
Further, it is possible that same-sex advocates will be just be finally found to be spiritually and psychologically confused of their aberrant nature, which can still be helped by society not by making their aberrant proposition as constitutionally valid but by way of advise, either psychological, medical or spiritual.
Above are without prejudice to discovery of treatments that may be published later by theologians, physiologists, researchers and scientists ‘to treat the said aberrant behavior’.
Furthermore, if same-sex proponents insist on their proposition, they should be logically required to adopt and pass their own constitution to make their oral or anal sex appearing constitutional. (more…)
4And this is the message: “Those who are evils will not survive, but those who are righteous will live because they are faithful to God”. Is the word “evils” found in Habakkuk 2:4 relevant to superbugs, HIV/AIDS and lust or ‘oral sex’ behaviors of the present generation? Or is it all about scientific knowledge that matters when talking about illnesses?
Also, is there any relationship between diseases and the words of God? This has to be clarified because when infectious diseases and their treatments are discussed, ordinarily, people are inclined to associate them only with medical science, as these diseases are scientifically known to be caused by pathogens, e.g virus, bacteria and fungus.
The remedy in mind is thus more on controlling or mitigating or eliminating these pathogens with antibiotics, anti-viral or anti-fungal medications, respectively.
Also, in terms of prevention, less likely that people would consider the scriptural warnings on misbehavior and more specifically, less likely to believe that God’s ‘curse’ is a factor in the development or pathogenesis of a disease. In fine, majority would not associate illness to violation of God’s words. (more…)
Today’s generation is bombarded with popular terms such as human rights and women’s rights. For example, recently, Philippines has been bombarded by the ‘slam’ report of human rights monitors concerning Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s threat to kill a smuggler.
On the other hand, there are reports concerning Reproductive Health Law being pursued to be implemented despite its constitutionality is being questioned before the Philippine Supreme Court.
Both invoked the words “human rights” and additionally “women’s rights” for Reproductive Health Law. Also, in the case of same-sex marriage, the same rights are being invoked.
But in reality, is there such kind of rights? Or are they only delusional? Or are they actually wrongs?
Let us try testing this counter-argument to the present beliefs, if these rights are actually in existence.
First premise: These rights are not being invoked for other purposes, except in relation to the use of a human body. For example, we say human rights violation when someone is abusing someone’s body, either physically, psychologically, sexually, etc. or all of the above or killing that body outside the available judicial processes. If you abuse a woman physically, sexually or psychological, you could be accused of violation of women’s rights.
On the other hand, in worst cases, one may abuse his own body through legal process, e,g euthanasia, which is allowed in some jurisdictions. Or in the case of reproductive health law, the decision to have a child or impair one’s capability to reproduce is dependent on the couple concerned by using contraceptives. (more…)
Dictionary.reference.com defines onanism as coitus interruptus or withdrawal of the penis in sexual intercourse so that ejaculation takes place outside the vagina. It is also referred as an act of masturbation. From the preceding two (2) definitions however, significant inconsistencies can easily be noted.
First, the former connotes the presence of man and woman participating in the act while in the latter, the act can be done alone. Second, the first one is gender sensitive while the second definition is not.
Third, there is an element of physical sexual intercourse in the first unlike in the second. Fourth, there is an element of insertion and withdrawal in the first which are not present in the second.
Above are just the examples of the differences and these definitions are also cited in www.thefreedictionary.com.Their inconsistencies may not be fatal, if either one of them is descriptive , but as maybe noted, both of them are not clearly reflective of the origin of the word. To forewarn, onanism has no relation to Secretary Enrique Ona, the (more…)
The operational definition of traditional “parenthood” is modified by R.A 10354, otherwise known as ““An Act Providing for National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health””.
It is due to the letter and spirit of the law, which include persons and their multiple same-sex partners as parents.
All Filipino lesbians, homosexuals, including sexual perverts and pornographers must therefore thank President Benigno Aquino III for this benefit. Because, the President has finally proven to them that they are his “boss” too.
Therefore, instead of criticizing the President, they, including homosexual priests, should stop, as he had not only signed but also urgently made into law a health law, purposely, for the sake of their sexual “lust”, at the cost of taxing-paying Filipino public, including Congressman Manny Pacquiao. (Only that-Congressman Pacquiao paid more (more…)
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.
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 (more…)