A RESPONSE TO “HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT IMMORAL. HATE IS” pt4: No to SOGIE Bill
By: Admin Chris
This is going to be my last response to a post made by UP Babaylan who criticized Assumption Iloilo for some changes in their own policy [1]. In my previous posts, I argued that they misinterpreted Pope Francis and the Scriptures [2] [3]. Other than that, their liberal view that engaging in homosexual relationships and sexual acts is inferior to the conservative view that I defended using the argument from natural law [4]. I think it is time to discuss about public policy. There is no question that UP is an advocate of SOGIE bill. UP Babaylan said:
“𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘓𝘎𝘉𝘛𝘘𝘐 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘐𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘭𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥…𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘚𝘖𝘎𝘐𝘌𝘚𝘊 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘎𝘉𝘛𝘘𝘐 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘖𝘎𝘐𝘌𝘚𝘊-𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 [1].”
However, I disagree with SOGIE bill and other related policies because it violates freedom of association, religion, and speech. Consider this statement from SOGIE bill. According to SOGIE Bill, another unlawful act is:
“(𝘭) 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦, 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵, 𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝙇𝙂𝘽𝙏s, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘼𝘾𝙏𝙎 𝘰𝘳 𝙋𝙍𝘼𝘾𝙏𝙄𝘾𝙀𝙎 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯, 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙇𝙊𝙎𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙁-𝙀𝙎𝙏𝙀𝙀𝙈 [5] [𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥];”
I agree that there are some speeches that are wrong such as intentionally shaming or insulting members of LGBTQQIAAP. However, the problem with this statement is that it includes any forms of public speech that may lead to people losing their self-esteem. If someone made a speech that they find offensive, that person can be criminalized under SOGIE bill. A transwoman was interviewed by Rappler, and the transwoman said:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝙉𝙊𝙏 𝘢 𝙒𝙊𝙈𝘼𝙉 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝙑𝙄𝙊𝙇𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀 [6] [𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥]."
So now, people who oppose transgender ideology by saying that a transwoman is a man can be criminalized. If a priest said that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin in accordance to CCC #2357, that priest can be criminalized. Where is the freedom of speech for people who still believe in traditional sexual morality? In fact, the concept that an “offensive” speech is a crime is contrary to how freedom of speech is understood. The Supreme Court in US said:
“𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 [7].”
As you can see above, it’s not enough to say that UP and others disagree with the understanding of morality of Assumption Iloilo or that they disagree with it. Aside from the argument that SOGIE bill violates freedom of speech, I will recommend the position paper by Prolife Philippines for an in-depth defense of conservative view on the SOGIE bill [7]. I would like to move on to the joint statement cited by UP Babaylan, and I think it’s a fair assumption they agree with what that document says. In the joint statement entitled, “Homosexuality is not Immoral”, the authors disagreed with the following statements from Assumption Iloilo.
“𝘐𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘴, 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥/𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰: 𝘹𝘹𝘹 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘹𝘹𝘹”
“𝘐𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘐𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘭𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”
As I always say, no one can make a moral claim that homosexuality is not immoral unless one will make a philosophical argument because morality presupposes ethics. They surely disagree that seeking same-sex relationship and homosexual sex are not immoral. However, the document did not even provide a philosophical defense for their claim, not even a single citation to sufficiency of consent which is foundational to liberal sexual ethics. If they disagree with us on the issue of morality, I will recommend them to address my objections to them and my argument from natural law perspective [4].
Other than that, the authors may disagree with the idea that Assumption Iloilo has to guard its students from promoting what the school views as immorality in social media. However, the Supreme Court doesn’t see a problem with this kind of authority. There was a case when two graduating high school students violated the Student’s Handbook of St. Theresa College on the issues of possession of alcoholic drinks outside campus, engaging in immoral acts, smoking in public places, apparel that exposes the underwear, clothing that is sexually suggestive and posing pictures on the internet entailing body exposure. The photos that act a proofs were posted in Facebook and accessible to any user besides their Facebook friends. The school decided that they can no longer attend graduation. One parent made a petition that the decision made by St. Theresa College is wrong, and one argument she gave is that her child was called “immoral.” The Supreme Court justified the decision of the school by saying:
"𝘈𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩, 𝘚𝘛𝘊 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘺𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘖𝘚𝘕𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘪𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴’ 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 [8]."
The joint document cited by UP Babaylan continued by saying that it violated the Section 3 of Republic Act 9710 which says:
“𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳, 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯, 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩, 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 [9].”
However, nothing can be further from the truth, as what Assumption Iloilo said in reply to some accusations. If they refused to admit people with same-sex attraction or any member of LGBTQQIAAAP, it could be a violation of Section 3 of Republic Act 9710. However, what they sanction is “acts”, not the “condition.” Assumption Iloilo said:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨” 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘳 “𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 “𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨” 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘳 “𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘳 “𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣” 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 [10] [emphasis added].”
Obviously, if liberals, such as UP Babaylan and others, believe in the moral permissibility according to consent, and there is a consent that a member of LGBTQQIAAP will follow the rules of the Student’s Handbook, then they should find the policy by Assumption Iloilo to be morally permissible. In fact, if they really advocate for freedom, they cannot promote both homosexuality and SOGIE bill. If we want to express our freedom, we need to risk being “offensive” or “offended.” This goes to both sides whether someone is a liberal or conservative. As such, the Assumption Iloilo should have the freedom to define what immoral acts are. As Assumption Iloilo said:
“𝘈𝘴 𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘐𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘭𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 [10]
LET CATHOLIC SCHOOLS BE CATHOLIC.
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE!
#NoToSogieBill #WeStandWithAssumption #LetCatholicSchoolsBeCatholic
References:
