I’ve always recognized the freedom to be who you are, and that applies just as much to the LGBTQIA+ community as it does to anyone else. If someone feels that they are a different gender from what the world sees or if they love in ways that traditional norms may not always understand, I don’t see why anyone should stop them from embracing that. But—and this is the part that gets tricky—it’s one thing to live your truth, and another thing entirely to expect everyone else to live by that same truth. There’s got to be some space where people can coexist, even with their differing views, without feeling forced into adopting each other’s beliefs.

I understand the struggle of LGBTQIA+ folks; it takes guts to stand up against centuries of societal norms and carve out an identity that feels authentic to them. It’s a deeply personal journey, and no one else can walk that road for them. But I’ve noticed that in pushing for acceptance, there’s sometimes this quiet demand that straight people not only accept but believe the same things. And to be honest, that’s where I started to feel a bit uneasy. I’m all for respecting someone else’s perspective, but why does that mean I have to change mine? It’s not that I’m rigid or closed-minded, but I also want the same respect for the fact that I see the world differently. There’s a fine line between seeking validation and imposing a worldview on others.

It’s like this: imagine you’re at a potluck, and everyone brings their favorite dish. You’ve got someone who’s into exotic cuisine—let’s say, some spicy, off-the-wall recipe that most people haven’t tried before. It’s great they’re proud of it, but it doesn’t mean everyone at the table has to load up their plate with it if it’s not to their taste. Let people enjoy their meal, and if someone wants to try something new, they will. It’s the same with identity. You can present yourself however you wish, but expecting everyone to embrace the same flavor of life feels a bit like serving a dish with no regard for someone else’s preferences.

Of course, the irony is that LGBTQIA+ advocacy has always been about freedom—freedom to love who you love, freedom to express who you are. But then, why is it sometimes suggested that straight people should get with the program and adopt the same beliefs, almost as if they’re behind the times if they don’t? Let’s not forget that freedom is a two-way street. Straight people, or anyone for that matter, have the right to say, “That’s not how I see things,” without being labeled as bigoted or close-minded. To me, that’s real freedom—when we can all walk down different roads without forcing each other into the same lane.

I’ve had conversations with friends who identify as LGBTQIA+, and while I respect where they’re coming from, I also feel like there’s this subtle pressure in the air. It’s like there’s a checklist now—you must use the right pronouns, and accept fluid identities as fact, and if you hesitate for even a second, you’re suddenly part of the problem. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll gladly call someone whatever they want to be called, but it feels less like a mutual understanding and more like a demand sometimes. And honestly, that kind of pressure doesn’t make me feel more understanding, it makes me feel cornered. Who enjoys being told what to think or how to behave?

What gets lost in all this, I think, is the idea that people are capable of holding different beliefs without hating each other. I can disagree with someone’s identity without denying their right to live that way. Just like how I can prefer classic country music while someone else loves hip-hop. We’re not in a cultural war over it—just two people with different tastes. So why does it seem like when it comes to gender and sexuality, things have to be so black and white? It’s as if there’s no room for respectful disagreement anymore. You either buy into the whole package, or you’re out of touch.

And honestly, straight people aren’t immune to confusion either. Let’s not pretend that everyone who’s cisgender has got life all figured out. There are plenty of straight folks trying to sort out their issues, and the last thing they need is to feel like they’re obligated to buy into a concept that doesn’t resonate with them. It’s not about being threatened by someone else’s freedom, but more about being allowed to maintain their sense of reality. If someone’s version of reality says they’re a man or a woman in the traditional sense, that should be okay, too. It doesn’t mean they’re rejecting others’ realities; they just don’t want to deny their own.

What I think we need is a middle ground—a space where people can be unapologetically themselves without expecting everyone else to follow suit. If someone wants to live out their truth, I’m all for it, but let’s not pretend that one version of reality is the gold standard for everyone. If there’s one thing that might help, it’s the realization that freedom includes the freedom to disagree. Maybe, just maybe, we can start appreciating our differences without making anyone feel like they’re on the wrong side of history for simply thinking differently.

WHEN Christ complained against the Pharisees about their hypocrisy with these words: “Now you Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but your inside is full of rapine and iniquity,” (Lk 11,39) we are strongly reminded of the danger of hypocrisy that can easily enter into our lives. We should be ready to protect ourselves from it, but learn also how to differentiate it from our need for discretion in our lives.

That’s because hypocrisy and discretion can appear to have certain things in common.

Some hiding is involved in both conditions. But the former certainly is an anomaly while the latter is a necessity in our life. The former goes against sincerity, truthfulness and consistency. The latter seeks to protect the truth that can easily be misunderstood by those who are not yet prepared to accept it.

Of course, the only way for us to be able to differentiate between the two is for us to be truly united with God. Yes, only with him can we have the power to avoid hypocrisy even as we need to live discretion in certain situations in our life.

Nowadays, with the plethora of data and information, we have to remind ourselves constantly that truthfulness is not simply a matter of conforming these data and pieces of information to our own designs. We need to process these raw data by leavening them with the love of God and submitting them to God’s will.

To put it bluntly, we can only be in the truth when we are with God. Outside of him, let’s wish ourselves sheer luck, because the most likely thing to happen is to slip from the truth. It´s like chasing the wind. For all the excitement and advantages a Godless pursuit of truth gives, everything will just turn out to be vanity.

And so, prayer is a must. It’s what vitally and existentially unites us with God. Without it, we will just be on our own, an easy prey to our own weaknesses, let alone, the temptations around.

Very vulnerable to the temptation to distort the truth and to fall into the tricks of hypocrisy and pretension are persons endowed and favored with all sorts of talents, intelligence, position, power and who may already have attained a good level of sanctity. That’s because their situation attracts all sorts of temptations.

This was what happened to the Pharisees of Christ’s time. They were the privileged people of the time, occupying prominent positions. Sadly, they were blinded by their so-called privileges that led them to miss the very personification of truth himself—Christ.

We should regularly examine ourselves to see if we are still with God, guided by the faith he shares with us, or we are already relying on our own human powers alone, that can only do so much.

To distinguish between hypocrisy and discretion would require us to have a proper understanding of what truth is, where to find it and how to find it. It is also a matter of how and when to present it.

It also involves the question of motives. Truthfulness and discretion are not just a matter of producing facts and data, blabbering them indiscriminately. They necessarily have to consider the intentions and the circumstances also.

Most importantly, truthfulness and discretion will always uphold charity even if in a given moment such effort would involve a lot of sacrifice. It’s charity that would dictate the terms of discretion in telling the truth. Hypocrisy fails in this requirement.

Since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, congress has yet to enact an enabling law prohibiting political dynasties. The utter failure to pass such legislation is due to the lack of interest of legislators as they will be the most affected. We know too well how politicians had maintained a stranglehold of elective positions and power with family and kin partaking the limited posts available. Such practice results in the concentration of political power within and among family members.

It deprives others of the opportunity to obtain elective office as the same are held exclusively beyond the reach and access of citizens who too are qualified to hold such offices. Incumbents and those in power have the edge in getting the position they presently hold. The tremendous force being wielded by the one in power who has at his disposal all necessary resources to ensure victory for him and every body in the family who are seeking elective office as well.

But we have been into such iniquitous situation ever since the provision against political dynasties was enshrined in the Constitution. The provision is well intended to equalize the playing field insofar as access to public office is made available to the citizenry. The idea may have been inspired by the unwritten rule where political power remains concentrated on individuals who are blessed to be so by the powers that be.

Dynasty according to one legal luminary who is one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, is committed in two ways. It may be simultaneous or successive. The more prevalent practice is successive dynasty wherein the elected post is passed among family members in succession after the end of the term limit of one family member.

Such practice deprives all others aspiring for the post from getting the office as the incumbent has always the decided advantage for wielding power and resources to ensure keeping the post. In the other mode, family members seek elective office simultaneously and acquire control over positions of power.

Such families would not be spending so much of their money if they do not see a good opportunity to rake back what they spent during elections. People would know how projects are cornered by dummies of politicians which results in irregularities through substandard materials and workmanship as such contracts are passed to sub-contractors with huge cuts from the original project cost. In some instances, politicians are the contractors themselves, using dummies as well but take the huge profit not just the cuts.

This is the case of the senatorial, congressional and even local politicians who had been into the practice of building dynasties. And they have the temerity to say that it is not their fault as they are voted into office by the gullible majority who prefers to elect entertainers and comedians than educated candidates. But there is no enabling law prohibiting dynasties that is why the system remains as a family business.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com