To quote him,
Noel Hernandez :
"For a great singer, too bad, she hasn't got a clue about the true effects of the RH Bill: to institutionalize promiscuity into our legal system. With all the free contraceptives floating around and encouraged for use by everybody, we are practically telling our young people, adolescents and all to have sex and not worry about anything. We might as well say goodbye to virtue."
May 24 at 10:09pm
I got very angry at this. It's not just about the bill anymore, but it's because Mr. Hernandez was saying something negative about a person who voluntarily allowed herself to carry the burden of becoming the RH Bill ambassadress (for free) for the love of her country -- no less than Lea Salonga. And here you are, whoever the heck you are, saying she "hasn't got a clue"? Wow! The nerve!
After swinging my head from left to right to left to right over and over and over again, I responded very calmly saying,
Ludwig Bon Quirog :
"Oh, dear... another one of these. The religious rants about God's will and what not."
Sunday at 6:51am
I was rather calm about it since I noticed people were already engaging in an argument with him. I saw his shallow responses and I didn't want to be redundant by restating things that other people have already said in the thread.
However, he addressed this to me,
Noel Hernandez :
"Ludiwg, Like I said, if you have nothing intelligent to contribute better shut up. Your comment is totally insipid (if you know what the word means)."
Sunday at 5:53pm
Right. Is it just me or was that some sort of insinuation that I'm not capable of contributing something intelligent? Well, I regarded it as a challenge. The parentheses were uncalled-for. If I know what the word means, huh?
This was my response,
Ludwig Bon Quirog :
"I know what "insipid" means, thank you. I know a lot of words, for that matter. I do have a couple of intelligent ideas to contribute, but I'd rather not get myself into an argument where I will be reiterating the same things over and over again. I've been doing that for the last two years and I always end up getting called names and told to "shut up and go to hell." That's where I perceive a conversation like this is headed. Frankly, expressions like that don't affect me since I don't hold belief in such things. However, I find it pathetic that the bases for arguments from the likes of you are rooted in religious morality (something which is subjective), suppression of modern ideas, insistence in the lack of necessity for sex education for hypothetical reasons such as "it will lead to promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility (which is, in fact, already happening and is the very thing the bill is aiming to combat)," rejection of contraception because "it's tantamount to abortion (which is false)," and "it's going to hasten health deterioration (says your research narrative which doesn't contain any reference citation)".
"We don't need to argue about this anymore.
"You hold belief in your principles and I hold belief in mine. I also respect your opinion when you state that Lea "hasn't got a clue," but I have to state my own opinion to counter that in a plain statement that doesn't require reading between the lines: You're wrong about Lea. She knows more about the bill than you ever will.
"You can beat the drum all day about virtues and hypothetical scenarios of what the RH Bill "practically" entails such as the so-called institutionalization of promiscuity, as you've very rationally put it, while we, the pros, continue to advocate informed choices and progress through proper education. Promiscuity is something we can't suppress no matter how virtuous our institutions are. Like Lea said, if young people want to have sex, they WILL find a way -- even if someone comes up with a law requiring parents and guardians to perpetually ground them!
"I will not argue with you, Noel. I'm avoiding redundancy right now -- on my part, at least. We both know what arguments we're going to be tossing at each other, so it's best if we examine them in our heads rather than create a long brouhaha of words that will lead to insults.
"To quote Lea again, "no one has a monopoly on God, and no one is privy to the fullness of His will." True, religion has its place in this debate -- just like in every other aspect of life for those that hold one. However, that place is in the heart. That place is in the core of the being. Single-sided religious arguments have NO place in a conversation that affects people who hold varying beliefs -- especially an entire nation."
about an hour ago
Now, I don't know how you're all going to take this. I don't know if you're going to appreciate it or feel negatively about it.
I don't know how Lea herself is going to feel about me quoting her, but the urge to respond this way was brought about by how staunch an advocate I am for the bill.
Anyway, Lea, thank you so much for being on progress' side. I hope you don't mind me borrowing so many of your statements.
I want the bill to be passed -- for the Philippines, for the land, for its citizens, yes, for all of us.
Let's all say the mantra together:
I support the RH Bill!
.
.
.
