Good evening your honor, ladies and gentlemen, as the third speaker of the negative side I
would like to first and foremost dispute the argument of the affirmative team saying that to ban
same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination. The basis for discriminating against homosexuals
on this issue is not arbitrary. Homosexuality is not like skin color and other inherited traits. It is
the result, in part, of ones up-bringing and the choices one has made. We are judging or
discriminating with regard to who has the right to marry. But not all discrimination is
unjust. They have to show one or both of the following: (1) that they are entitled to what they
are being denied (i.e., marriage), and (2) that the basis for discrimination is arbitrarily based
upon irrelevant factors. With regards to the conjugal properties, there is a way to make a same
sex partner an heir of his deceased partner by means of a last will and testament.
Moreover, let me now state the facts and legal bases on why implementing same sex marriage
in the Philippines is not practicable.
Legalizing same sex marriage would open the door to other perversions of
marriage.
Redefining marriage to go beyond the union of one man and one woman to include same-sex
unions will inevitably lead to further redefinitions of marriage. The logic behind the push for
same-sex marriage – that marriage is a social convention and society can and should redefine
marriage to suit current cultural beliefs about sexuality, family, etc. – can be used to justify
other non-traditional unions. Only pure arbitrariness can limit the redefinition of marriage only
to homosexuals. As Albert Mohler puts it, “Once marriage is no longer ‘one thing,’ but now
‘another thing,’ there is nothing to stop marriage from becoming virtually ‘everything.”
If same-sex marriages are legalized, there is nothing but emotion to prevent the legalization of
polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, group marriages, bestial marriages, or worse.
Art. 1. of the family code of the Philippines states that “Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law
for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements
may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code.” Let me give an emphasis on the phrase “inviolable social institution” and by inviolable it
means never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored. Same sex marriage devalues traditional
marriage and family. If man were to change the true essence of marriage and family, what
becomes of society? Philippines society has stayed intact because we have never legalized same
sex marriage. Steve Largent, a former US congressman, once said, “No culture that has ever
embraced homosexuality has survived”. If Philippine society were to prosper and survive, let
same sex marriage remain outlawed.
On to my second point, Philippines is principally a Christian country, particularly a
Roman Catholic nation. Although there is a separation of the church and state, the
lawmakers of the Philippines consider morals derived from the Bible in legislating
laws. Benevolent neutrality is manifest not only in the Constitution but has also
been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence as stated in the case of Estrada vs.
Escritor.
It says that, Benevolent neutrality is congruent with the sociological proposition
that religion serves a function essential to the survival of society itself, thus there is no
human society without one or more ways of performing the essential function of
religion. If the Philippines will legalize same sex marriage, it would violate the religious
freedom and the long-held morals of the majority. Legalizing same sex marriage would
turn a moral wrong into a civil right. Far from remaining neutral, the government
would, if it sanctions same-sex marriage, be adopting a particular view of human
nature, a particular view of human sexuality, and a particular view of marriage. The
view it would adopt is the relativistic view that sexuality and marriage are whatever two
consenting adults want them to be.
Lastly and the most neglected fact is that it is against the natural law.
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in
human nature and thus governed by natural law. Homosexual couples cannot produce an
offspring for the obvious reason that biologically it is impossible to do. However, they could opt
for in vitro fertilization or hire a “baby maker”, but what would be the result of this then? This
would render their children lacking a mother or a father as the parents would either be both
male or female. This is harmful for a growing child because naturally and biologically, children
long for both a father and a mother for their development years. A study has been conducted
which showed that when a daughter lacks a father, she would more likely be pregnant at a
younger age, this is according to the article by Bruce J. Ellis. A 1999 research by David
Popenoe has also been conducted which showed that “a father’s pheromones influence
the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model
for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the
sexual entreaties of their boyfriends”. A boy raised without a father will also tend to be
more likely to be effeminate because he has no model for masculinity. For those who lack
mothers, they are deprived of the love and care only a mother could give. Due to these
reasons, it is imperative for a child to grow up with both a mother and a father, which a
homosexual union cannot give. The famous English philosopher Bertrand Russel once said that
“it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be
taken cognizance of by a legal institution”. Heterosexual married couples can have sex and
reproduce; this is essential to the survival of human race and to bring balance in human nature
as a whole.
