Manny Pacquiao's problem: "gay is fine, gay marriage is bad"

This is a reflection of the most popular boxer and Filipino in the previous release regarding his response to Barrack Obama's favor of same-sex marriage. What's the problem here?

The differences are welcome but there are baggage and limitations: as long as they are not married, there will be a legal state in the patriarchal world of capitalism, as well as a preference for adoption offered to marriage partners, as well as divorce ' t to death and share of property.

This is the limit of tolerance because acceptance is limited, and thus remains a form of intolerance. In a liberal democracy, the plurality of opinions and positions is important because ultimately, it is expected that there will be consensus, such as elections and public opinion that will favor the majority opinion.

This is the right position even if not everyone is in favor. And the winning position does not explicitly override other alternative nominal positions. It is also the view of multiculturalism that people have their own unique source, which in many cases is part of the package deal on birth (sex, sex, economic status, religion, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) and selected affinities (sexualities, new religions, class aspirations, and nationalities in migration, for example) and those not selected (refugees, migrants, and political detainees, for example).

Much literature has been written that criticizes the idea and practice of tolerance — that what it does is a myth because it merely suppresses the possibility of other identities and positions. Homosexuals, lesbians and other LGBT members are welcome, but the possibility of same-sex marriage is unacceptable because, like Pacquiao, affinity is more important than any other cultural formation (religion in this case). In this logic, they can act as gay but have other possibilities: marriage, adoption, surrogate parenthood, recognition of their child, wealth sharing, and other experiences provided by "normal" (privileged) personality and identity.

You're just here, and thank you very much. And when it does, the trespasser violates the principle agreed upon — what is granted and remitted to him.

In Mario Lopez's interview with Pacquiao, the outline of the question was to clarify a message to his gay fans — asking for forgiveness. The stage of clarification is just a repetition of the text and context of the controversial response, nothing new.

The appeal of gay fans is to raise awareness of gay and lesbian potential that will affect Pacquiao's economic gain, pink currency is protected. The final stage of the apology is the unfolding process of atonement in the rhetoric of showbiz and pop Catholicism: confession of guilt, encouragement of romance, and the urge to "let's move on from here."

What the rally shows is the bite-size knowledge of the issue, and the media formulating what it is, how and why it works — maintaining the status quo. Shouldn't Pacquiao still remain at the peak of his field and success, despite the fact that he is still a contender? He and his handlers have a need to protect their investment that, among other things, has elected him the richest congressman in the country? Apologizing is a performative gesture: it is done because it is needed, not because it is wrongly mistreated or because the opinion has changed.

The clarification should be clear, but the clarification did not bring new understanding but reaffirmation of homophobia, bigotry, prejudices, and discrimination. And just as pardon in the lapse in judgment of Pacquiao's main patron in the past administration, Gloria Arroyo has not been taken care of.

The rationalization took place solely on economic imperatives. And as expected with a rational emphasis, how and why would you resist it? Pacquiao is still a sacred economic figure, and his LGBT fans will still reject him even if he has doubts about whether to continue.

But more importantly, the cracks have been seen in the so-called icon of capitalism - its rags-to-riches have not been able to catch up with the opening of consciousness: they remain closed and need to be pulled but also forced to open the collective closure of the rising class .

This is their boundary.