A Letter to the “open-minded” LGBT Community

Image Source: Image Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2014/05/gay-flag-copy.jpg
Image Source: Image Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2014/05/gay-flag-copy.jpg

Dear LGBT community,

We love you, period. We do not deny that there has been a lot of heated discussions concerning gender issue. We also do not deny that there has been a lot of hate going on concerning the same issue, not denying that most of it are coming from our side. And in result, it made you feel unsafe, unprotected, and marginalized.

We understand that you were on the outskirts of protection, especially since year 2008, where “there have been at least 28 recorded murders of Filipino transgenders.”[1] We don’t rejoice knowing that. Those were lives taken. Those were precious lives taken. We grieve as you grieve.

And if there’s any hint that we may appear to be not, please forgive us. We also know what it feels like to lose a companion, let alone our loves ones. Please forgive us if there are any indications that we have treated you as lesser human beings, rather than beings with dignity having the Imago Dei. Please forgive us with our aggressive attitude. This is something we need to confess and repent to our Lord.

We write this letter to you, knowing that you call yourself a “rational” and “open-minded” community. We write this letter knowing that any rational and open-minded community must and should listen with the best as they can to understand the issue undertaken, and where the opposing party is coming from. We write this letter to you in hope that you would read until the end of it (including the footnotes if possible).

And by the way, for the sake saving some future space, please allow us to use the pronoun “he” instead of “he/she” when referring to a person. This, however, does not mean to be anti-feminine (b/c that’s not the issue). We’re just trying to save some space.

That is, thank you for being so kind reading this letter.

However, that doesn’t mean we now condone your lifestyle and all your beliefs. Although we sincerely apologize if our attitude towards you were by in large part heated and hateful, but we cannot apologize for holding on to what we believe to be right. 

Any rational being do not and should not apologize for holding on to what he knows is the truth. He does and should only apologize if he discovers what he believes to be false. Or else that would be a good example for bigotry.

Please understand that we still firmly believe that people are created equal in the image of God, which gives us an irrevocable dignity. There’s another alternative though, but which is not very dignifying – we have evolved from an inferior species overtime by genetic adaptation acting upon “random variations or mutations,” with natural selection as mechanism. In other words, we are not designed by God but are by-product of an “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material process.” [2]

But wait a minute, aren’t we suppose to talk about human rights, equality, dignity, and all those valuable terms ad infinitum? Of course! But in order to do that, we must recognize the first alternative – there’s a God who creates and defines. Or else there’s no point of gender debate here, since we’re just “nothing more than molecules in motion.” [3] Molecules don’t have gender and rights, let alone dignity.

Please understand that we also believe that loving a person doesn’t require us to accept his behaviors and lifestyles, let alone his beliefs. I mean think about this one: you are not even required to accept all your behaviors as morally right in order to accept yourself. No way. We know we some have flaws. We know we have some false beliefs. We know we have some offenses. And its the wisdom of a person to overlook offenses (c.f. Prov. 19:11) and love the person in spite of.

Please don’t presuppose “that the only way to love and accept people is to condone and promote whatever lifestyles and sexual orientations they prefer to live. Thus, to disagree with their behaviors or lifestyles and gender preferences is to be a hateful, bigoted, homophobic, narrow-minded person that kicks out human equality in its own crisis.” [4]

Because “that view is misguided. Ideas are not created equal. Lifestyles or behaviors are not created equal. To disagree w/ me here is just to prove my point. Thus, no one can say it better than Rick Warren:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. [5]

But time out!

When we disagree with your behavior, lifestyles and opinions – you call us bigot. But when you disagree with our beliefs and convictions – you call it your human right. Can you kindly explain that to us, in hope that we might understand? You have the human right to disagree with us, but we don’t have the human right to disagree with you (since we’re just bigots). In short, why this double standard?

Yes, there “have been at least 28 recorded murders of Filipino transgenders,” since 2008. But we cannot overstate that. We cannot exaggerate that. We cannot use that as a political maneuver. Because if we only investigate deeply, we may find out that some of them, if not most of them, are not murdered for being a transgender per se. 

We don’t want to go into the details of about it, but to take one instance, one transgender was murdered by a U. S. Marine – not because he was a transgender, but because he lied to that marine and pretended to be woman, and was found out to be male when they did a “whatever-whatever.” [6] We may cry that it should not be murder. Yes it should not! That was a precious life taken.

But to overstate the murder of the 28 Filipino transgenders is unacceptable. Why? Because there have been thousands of recorded murders among heterosexuals. And we don’t care too much about it, because it’s common! It’s in the news everyday! It’s a norm! Some of them were young women who were first raped. They were raped and murdered for being women per se. For just walking home quietly from school or from work, minding their own business. And there were hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

But why do we overstate the former and understate the latter? Why put the megaphone on the former and consider the latter common? Are the lives of those young women less valuable than our transgender friends? In short, why this double standard

We understand that Sen. Hontiveros seeks to pass the Anti-Discrimination Bill (ADB) with the first senate hearing committee today (31 Aug of 2016). That’s what something you have been waiting for! However, we think it’s still too early to conclude what is the bill about and what it is not about. [7] So we only hope and pray for wisdom for our leaders in the Senate and Congress to evaluate the issue thoughtfully and truthfully with their conscience. Because a lot is at stake.

Nevertheless, we already know where is this going. And we hope we’re wrong seeing this trajectory. This is a legit slippery slope. This is another step towards the marriage debate. This is another step to open the topic of same-sex marriage (SSM). In short, this is another step in questioning the traditional view of marriage between one man (male) and a woman (female). If the West successfully did it, what makes us think that we can’t do it also? 

But in saying that this is a legit slippery slope, it is totally a legit slippery slope!

If marriage is whatever we define it to be, as long there you love one another, then we already have lost the anchor of our ship. And there’s no knowing where we are going to get off! Or as the state of state of Massachusetts say, “If you can carry it, you can marry it.”

If it’s okay for same-sex couples to marry as long as they love each another, then there’s no reason to prohibit a mother and her son marrying each another because they believe that they have the right for they are both consenting adults. Well, the same reasoning is also true for a “throuple.” There’s no more valid reasons to limit marriage between two consenting adults who love each another, when we can have three or more, just like Kitten, Doll, and Bryn, who hoped “to show the world that polyfidelity is an acceptable choice of love.”

If it’s okay for same-sex couples to marry as long as they love each another, then there’s no reason to prohibit a 46-year old woman marrying her own dog, of course, in the name of love. Oh, the same is also true for the middle-aged woman who marries her parrot. “Love wins,” they say!

The same reasoning goes for gender debate. If gender is whatever a person identify himself/herself/itself to be, then there’s no reason to discriminate the perception of a 52-year old husband who left his wife and seven kids and now identifies himself as a 6-year old girl. Or a man who identifies himself as a dog, or a Norwegian woman who identifies herself as a cat, or a transgender man who had his ears and nose removed to identify himself as a dragon.

Friends, if we define marriage and gender whatever we define it to be, then brace out for the social madness and hoops!

Lastly, if we allow our sexual orientation and preferences to govern our policies, the victims will not be us. It will be the next generation. They will wake up someday not knowing where the ship has gone. 

This has never been and should never be about “us” versus “The LGBT Community.” But it has been about “our personal preferences” versus the good of the next generation.


Christians who thoughtfully engage with the issue because they care so much about the next generation and their future, more than their own.


PS: If this letter made sense to you, please do share it. Thank you.

And If you’re still open-minded, please care to watch this clip:

[1] See http://journal.com.ph/news/top-stories/hontiveros-upbeat-on-anti-discrimination-bill

[2]  Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas, “The Meanings of Evolution,” in Darwinism, Design and Public Education, ed. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003), 136-137.

[3] See Carl Sagan, “The Quest for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” Cosmic Search 1 (1978), http://www.bigear.org/vol1no2/sagan.htm.

[4] Quoted from https://www.facebook.com/jairoh10010/posts/1329183887095945.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Let’s just use “whatever-whatever” to cover the filthy language. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/world/asia/us-marine-joseph-pemberton-guilty-in-killing-of-transgender-woman-in-philippines.html?_r=0.

[7] See http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/gender-issues/137968-anti-discriminatory-bill-17th-congress