same-sex marriage, noun ,marriage between partners of the same sex (as recognized in

some jurisdictions).

Same-sex marriage, the practice of marriage between two men or between two women.
Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most
countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the
one hand to criminalization on the other.

That Same Sex Marriage Should be Legalized in the Philippines

(Positive)

Premises
1.) To exercise freedom of choice.
2.) To control population.
3.) To have an opportunity to adopt children from orphanage.
4.)To practice human rights.
5.)To prevent HIV disease.

INTRODUCTION

Same sex marriage is known as a marriage between two persons of the same
biological sex or gender . It is one of the most controversial yet sensitive topics that have
been discuss around the world. Politicians are having debates on this subject trying to
decide whether it should be legal for same sexes to be married.

Minority Discrimination
To not legalize same-sex marriage is to further perpetuate the problem of minority
discrimination that has stained human history. Both of our countries share examples of
governments institutionalizing hate and discrimination by enacting laws and decrees upon
its minority citizens in various forms that aim to limit and instill inferiority in citizens of
minority groups such as Jim and Jane Crow laws and the apartheid
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws]]. Once this feeling of inferiority enters the
psychology of minorities, a lack of self worth leads to less economic and social prosperity as
well as a denial of one's own identity as they are barraged with the message that they are
lesser .

Importance of Government
Some arguments against gay marriage hold that they are merely unnecessary: same-sex
couples can live as they please without social or legal recognition. But this argument
inadequately addresses the social position of same-sex couples. The onus falls upon
individuals to create situations of equality, but institutional barriers provided by the
government discourage citizen action as it feels like an exercise in futility. The "you're on
your own" attitude 1) makes gay unions seem like merely a sexual "choice", unwittingly
supporting anti-gay propaganda that claims that homosexuality is "only a choice", 2)
forces same-sex couples to constantly explain their relationship and makes it difficult for
them to even refer to their relationship as a de facto marriage, because there is no cultural
norm or reference for a same-sex marriage 3) makes same-sex couples feel disenfranchised
and less willing to participate socially.

The government displeases citizens whenever it grants rights to a group that is seen as an
"other," but the discomfort of some citizens is not reason enough to deny people any of the
rights of membership of a society

Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State

It must be understood that marriage is an instrument toward subsequent rights and
interactions with the state that is being denied to a group. The state perceives that it has
some benefit from creating marriage as a legal institution, and it does, although not to the
same degree that those who engage in marriage receive benefits.

Marriage decreases legal ambiguity for individuals in a society, and lessens the burden
upon the state to clarify ambiguities that result. Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next
of kin, responsibilities toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon
the death of a spouse, and many other interactions that individuals have between
themselves, each other, and the state.

More than just gay rights

The transgender and intersex communities are often legislated into confusing situations
because of mandates for opposite-sex marriage. Depending on how "sex" is legislated in a
particular area, these individuals are arbitrarily prevented from marriage with long-term
partners who may or may not be intersexed, gay, or transgendered themselves. Since
"[t]here is no one biological parameter that clearly defines sex,"
[[http://www.isna.org/legal]], these individuals are often forced to choose a gender identity
that does not reflect their biological or emotional reality.

In the transgender community in Australia, the law, previous to Feb. 2003, allowed
transgender individuals to recognize themselves as the gender they had become except for
in marriage. In the famous case of Kevin and Jennifer, it was found to be unconstitutional
to assign someone's gender based upon their designated gender at the time of their birth.
[[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2003/94.html]] Due to the Marriage Act
of 1961, legal marriage is still held to be only between a "man and a woman". This means
that in Australia Post-operative transgendered persons may marry persons of the opposite
gender to their current gender. Pre-operative transgendered persons are not allowed
marriage and those who change their gender after marriage are still in a legal gray area.
We see that this puts undue stress on transgendered persons to obtain very expensive
surgery to change their gender if they wish to have a legally recognized marriage.

Intersexed individuals are those persons whose sexual identity is ambiguous in relation to
legal requirements either because their genitalia/gonads are doubly gendered or missing or
because they have mixed primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Since at least 1 in
1000 births show intersex characteristics [[http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency]], this is a
problem affecting significant portions of any society. Mandating gender-difference for
marriage creates significant problems for these people. in those places of the world where
marriage is seen as paramount, parents or doctors may perform surgery to "normalize"
the appearance of genitalia. This is estimated to be performed for one to two out of every
1000 live births. The size of one's clitoris or penis should not be the basis for a medical
procedure without the will of the patient. Columbia has reflected this in their decision to
prevent such surgeries from occurring [[http://www.isna.org/node/97]]. The fear of not
being able to marry off a child often leads to operations which are "inadequate" and need
to be repeated later in life.

Governments should not discourage people from their identity

When homosexual individuals are denied equal rights of marriage as heterosexual
individuals, they are given a choice between their identity and their desires for family and
companionship, as well as legal benefits. The moment when a homosexual individual, more
often than not a vulnerable and confused teenager, realizes his/her sexuality is a fragile one.
They are split between a choice, come to terms with their sexuality, a part of their identity,
and follow the 'gay lifestyle.' Or deny it, and continue living a facade as a heterosexual
man/woman. The sad truth is, many people choose the second, to the harm of themselves,
their future spouses, their children and all those who care about their happiness.

The question is, why? Why do these people choose to deny their homosexual desires?
Because the society puts too high a price on coming out of the closet. You faced by ridicule
and stigma amongst your peers, which while shameful, is still something people can endure.
The higher price you pay is being forced to give up your dreams of a family. Its a popular
joke that women start planning out their weddings when they are 10, imagine 5 years later
being asked to sacrifice that wedding just to accept your own identity as a lesbian?
Knowing you will be denied marriage, you have to choose to sacrifice all you dreamed
about for your traditional wedding, for your quaint family life, your children, and settle
instead for 'the gay lifestyle' of multiple sex partners, a bachelor's pad, and disease that
society wrongfully tells you is the inevitable fate for homosexual.This dichotomy is false,
and no one should feel forced to choose between these options.

This is possibly why we see so many stories of married men and women finally coming out
at 50 and leaving in their wake broken families; or the champions of the anti-gay
movement, the Ex-gays, who went through conversion therapy and turned straight so they
could have a family; or even unsatisfied broken individuals who even until their death live
an unfulfilling lie.

Future of Marriage
WHAT OUGHT we to hope and work for, as a just future for families in our society?
Should government continue to marry people at all? Should it drop the expressive
dimension and simply offer civil-union packages? Should it back away from package deals
entirely, in favor of a regime of disaggregated benefits and private contract? Such
questions, the penumbra of any constitutional debate, require us to identify the vital rights
and interests that need state protection and to think how to protect them without
impermissibly infringing either equality or individual liberty. Our analysis of the
constitutional issues does not dictate specific answers to these questions, but it does
constrain the options we ought to consider.

The future of marriage looks, in one way, a lot like its past. People will continue to unite,
form families, have children, and, sometimes, split up. What the Constitution dictates,
however, is that whatever the state decides to do in this area will be done on a basis of
equality. Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the
expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public interest. The full inclusion of
same-sex couples is in one sense a large change, just as official recognition of interracial
marriage was a large change, and just as the full inclusion of women and African
Americans as voters and citizens was a large change. On the other hand, those changes are
best seen as a true realization of the promise contained in our constitutional guarantees.
We should view this change in the same way. The politics of humanity asks us to stop
viewing same-sex marriage as a source of taint or defilement to traditional marriage but,
instead, to understand the human purposes of those who seek marriage and the similarity
of what they seek to that which straight people seek. When we think this way, the issue
ought to look like the miscegenation issue: as an exclusion we can no longer tolerate in a
society pursuing equal respect and justice for all.