BACKGROUND

ter, the United Nations appointed its first-ever independent expert on sexual

orientation and gender identity. “What is important here is the gradual building of
consensus,” says Graeme Reid, dSame-sex marriage is 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
of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program at Human Rights
Watch. “There’s an accumulation of moral pressure on member states to at least address the
most overt forms of discrimination or violence.”
In the Philippines  where 80% of citizens are Catholics. It has been the tradition to
follow the law of the government which is the Civil Code that a woman is only allowed to marry
the opposite sex. Same sex marriage has been a hot issue since then, but the Catholic Church is
holding their stand against it. In the United States, people are free to show who they really are.
This petition to approve the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines promotes that no
matter what race and age, we are all humans who have the right to get the happiness and
contentment that we deserve especially with our lifetime partners.
In 2015, a young, openly gay Filipino lawyer named Jesus Falcis petitioned the
Supreme Court for same-sex marriage, arguing that the current legislation was a violation of
their rights. The Philippines' highest court has dismissed a petition to allow same-sex marriage,
ruling that the applicant doesn't have a partner and therefore can't claim to be a victim of existing
laws.
ISSUES
1. Is same sex marriage constitutionally guaranteed in the Philippines?

2. Should same sex marriage be legalized in the Philippines?

.
OPENING STATEMENT (AFFIRMATIVE)
The rise of divorce in the modern era, moreover, was spurred not by a hatred of marriage
but, far more, by a high conception of what marriage ought to be. It’s not just that people began
to think that women had a right to divorce on grounds of bodily cruelty, and that divorce of that
sort was a good thing. It’s also that Christians began insisting—just like those ancient Romans—
that marriage was about much more than procreation and sexual relations. John Milton’s famous
defense of divorce on grounds of incompatibility emphasizes “meet and happy conversation” as
the central goal of marriage and notes that marriage ought to fulfill not simply bodily drives but
also the “intellectual and innocent desire” that leads people to want to talk a lot to each other.
Marriage is both universal and central. All across our country, in every region, every
social class, every race and ethnicity, every religion or non-religion, people get married. For
many if not most people, moreover, marriage is not a trivial matter. It is a key to the pursuit of
happiness, something people aspire to—and keep aspiring to, again and again.
Same-sex couples are no more so than heterosexual couples. They want to get married for
reasons very similar to those of heterosexuals: to express love and commitment, to gain religious
sanctification for their union, to obtain a package of civil benefits—and, often, to have or raise
children.
The idea that same-sex unions will sully traditional marriage cannot be understood
without moving to the terrain of disgust and contamination. The only distinction between
unworthy heterosexuals and the class of gays and lesbians that can possibly explain the
difference in people’s reaction is that the sex acts of the former do not disgust the majority,
whereas the sex acts of the latter do. Nothing short of a primitive idea of stigma and taint can
explain the widespread feeling that same-sex marriage defiles or contaminates straight marriage,
while the marriages of “immoral” and “sinful” heterosexuals do not do so.
 There is no evidence, however, that opposite-sex couples do better than same-sex
couples. There is a widespread feeling that these results can’t be right, that living in an
“immoral” atmosphere must be bad for the child. But that feeling rests on the religious
judgments of the argument; when the well-being of children is assessed in a religiously neutral
way, there is no difference.

We are in the 21st century already where we can freely express ourselves and our
feelings as long as we are not hurting anybody. 
OPENING STATEMENT (NEGATIVE)

The first and most widespread objection to same-sex marriage is that it is immoral and
unnatural. Similar arguments were widespread in the anti-miscegenation debate, and, in both
cases, these arguments are typically made in a sectarian and doctrinal way, referring to religious
texts. (Anti-miscegenation judges, for example, referred to the will of God in arguing that racial
mixing is unnatural.) It is difficult to cast such arguments in a form that could be accepted by
citizens whose religion teaches something different. They look like Jewish arguments against the
eating of pork: good reasons for members of some religions not to engage in same-sex marriage,
but not sufficient reasons for making them illegal in a pluralistic society.

Marriage has been seen as a religious and traditional ceremony in which a man and a
woman legally bind themselves to each other for the purpose of procreation, to raise a family
together. Article 139 of the family Code of the Philippines defines the family as those: (1)
Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children. Even the law is clear on what a
family should constitute. It takes a man and a woman to produce an offspring, not a man and a
man nor a woman and a woman because that would be biologically impossible to do. Marriage
always been between a man and a woman because they can reproduce. By allowing same-sex
marriage, two individuals who are unable to reproduce because of obvious biological reasons are
put together. If that is legalized, the view that marriage is for procreation will be shifted because
marriage would then be seen as a means for emotional gratification rather than to produce
offspring. The concept of procreation and marriage need no to be intertwined anymore because
the main goal would not be to reproduce. Same-sex couples should not have the privileged to
marry because they cannot breed, which is the goal of marriage. 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 the human race.

Marriage is about the protection of children, and we know that children do best in a home
with one father and one mother, so there is a legitimate public interest in supporting an
institution that fulfills this purpose. Psychological studies have shown that children do best when
they have love and support, and it appears that two-parent households do better at that job than
single-parent households.
 Is Same sex marriage constitutionally guaranteed in the Philippines?
AFFIRMATIVE:
The Constitution of the Philippines does not prohibit same-sex marriage. It does not
define, or restrict, marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or
expression.
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. It is
a non-self- executing provision that may accommodate legalization of same sex unions.
IN OUR constitutional tradition, there is frequent talk of a “right to marry.” In Loving,
the Court calls marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man.” A later case, Zablocki v. Redhail,
the Court states that “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals” and
continues with the observation that “the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of
importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family
relationships.” Before courts can sort out the issue of same-sex marriage, they have to figure out
two things: (1) what is this “right to marry”? and (2) who has it?
Is the right to marry, then, merely a non-discrimination right? If so, the state is not
required to offer marriages at all. It’s only that once it does so, it must do so with an even hand.
The talk of marriage as a “fundamental right,” together with the fact that most of these decisions
mingle equal protection analysis with due process considerations, suggests, however, that
something further is being said. What is it? Would it violate the Constitution if a state decided
that it would offer only civil unions and drop the status of marriage, leaving that for religious and
private bodies?
Put in terms of our three categories, then, does the “right to marry” obligate a state to
offer a set of economic and civil benefits to married people? Does it obligate a state to confer
dignity and status on certain unions by the use of the term “marriage”? And does it require the
state to recognize or validate unions approved by religious bodies? Clearly, the answer to the
third question is, and has always been, no. Many marriages that are approved by religious bodies
are not approved by the state, as the case of same-sex marriage has long shown us, and nobody
has thought it promising to contest these denials on constitutional grounds. The right to the free
exercise of religion clearly does not require the state to approve all marriages a religious body
approves. Nor does the “right to marry” obligate the state to offer any particular package of civil
benefits to people who marry. This has been said repeatedly in cases dealing with the marriage
right.

What does due process liberty mean in this case? Most of the cases concern attempts by
the state to forbid a class of marriages. That sort of state interference with marriage is,
apparently, unconstitutional on due process as well as equal protection grounds. So, if a state
forbade everyone to marry, that would presumably be unconstitutional.

Nowhere, however, has the Court held that a state must offer the expressive benefits of
marriage. There would appear to be no constitutional barrier to the decision of a state to get out
of the expressive game altogether, going over to a regime of civil unions or, even more
extremely, to a regime of private contract for marriages, in which the state plays the same role it
plays in any other contractual process.

In other words, marriage is a fundamental liberty right of individuals, and because it is

that, it also involves an equality dimension: groups of people cannot be fenced out of that
fundamental right without some overwhelming reason.
According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the right to marry is a fundamental right
“inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause, which
prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.” By virtue of the close connection between liberty and equality, the marriage right is also
guaranteed by the equal protection clause, which forbids the states from “deny[ing] to any
person…the equal protection of the laws.” Kennedy then argued at length that “the reasons
marriage is fundamental,” including its connection with individual liberty, “apply with equal
force to same-sex couples.
Thus I support that a declaration that Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code
of the Philippines (Family Code) are unconstitutional on the ground that Congress gravely
abused its discretion in ‘defining and limiting marriage as between man and woman’; and (2) an
order ‘prohibit[ing] the civil registrar-general from enforcing the portions of Articles 1 and 2 of
the Family Code in processing applications for and in issuing marriage licenses against
homosexual couples’. 

Is Same sex marriage constitutionally guaranteed in the Philippines?

NEGATIVE

The Philippines is principally a Christian country. Although there is a separation of the

church and the state, the lawmakers of the Philippines consider morals derived from the Bible in
legislating laws. Homosexuality is a rising trend in the Philippines. According to an article by
Atif Munawar (2015), if we consider the fact that it is against Filipino culture, morals and
tradition.

If the Philippine Government will legalize same sex marriage, it would violate the
religious freedom and the long-held morals of the majority.
 A main provision in marriage is having children and forming a family. Since same-sex
couples cannot conceive children, why should they marry?

Same sex marriage is contrary to our existing law. ARTICLE 1 of the FAMILY CODE
states Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered
into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.It is the
foundation of the family and 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.

Article 149 of the Family Code defines the family as those 1). Between husband and
wife, 2). Between parents and children. Even the law is clear on what a family should constitute.

The constitution sees family as a sacred unit of the society as an institution that has to be
protected and be given due respect. This is apparent in the enactment of the Family Code whose
the sanctity of family as a unit is given emphasis. In as much as such laws are made
constitutional, any provisions that will violate and transgress such are against the constitution.

In fact On January 24, 2020, the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage
unconstitutional on equality grounds certain provisions of the Philippine Family Code that define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
 Should same sex marriage be legalized in the Philippines?

AFFIRMATIVE:

The goal of most people in life is to be happy. There are two major fronts to their
happiness, their jobs and their love lives. While education may be the key to securing that perfect
job, there is no formula for finding the perfect mate, especially for gays.

Allowing same-sex marriage would enable gays and lesbians in the Philippines to marry
the person they love and would strengthen everyone’s rights. From a human rights perspective,
broadening civil marriage to couples of the same sex demonstrates respect for the fundamental
rights of equality and nondiscrimination. It should be enshrined in Philippine law..

Under the law, in cases of death without the last will and testament, the wife, ascendants,
and descendants will receive the inheritance. But without any marriage certificates to show, no
matter how long a gay couple has been together and no matter how much money the other person
in the relationship has poured in for the property if it is under the deceased name, they will not
get any share. This is the same for SSS and GSIS beneficiaries -- the primary is the legitimate
dependent spouse, secondary are parents.The same-sex civil union "fixes the different aspects of
the union of those of the same sex,"

A USAID study conducted in 2014, entitled "The Relationship between LGBT Inclusion

and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies", has shown that countries
which have adopted anti-LGBT economic laws have lower GDPs compared to those who do not
discriminate against employers/employees based on their sexual orientation. [114] The link between
discrimination and the economy is direct, since the discrimination experienced by members of
the LGBT community turn them into disadvantaged workers, which can be bad for business.
Disadvantaged workers usually practice absenteeism, low productivity, inadequate training and
high turnover, which make for higher labor costs and lower profits. [114] According to the USAID
study, LGBT people in their sample countries are limited in their freedoms in ways that also
create economic harms.

In the United States, people are free to show who they really are. This petition to approve
the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines promotes that no matter what race and
age, we are all humans who have the right to get the happiness and contentment that we deserve
especially with our lifetime partners.
 Should same sex marriage be legalized in the Philippines?

NEGATIVE:

Marriage is indeed a special contract for the purpose of establishing a conjugal and
family life.

It takes a man and a woman to produce an offspring. By allowing same sex marriage, the
view that marriage is for procreation will be shifted because marriage would then be seen as a
means for emotional gratification rather than procreation. The concept of procreation and
marriage need not to be intertwined anymore because the main goal would not be to reproduce.
Same sex couples should not have the previlige to marry because they cannot breed, which is the
main goal of marriage.

In 2018 Leonen's ponencia, Hemade it clear that it recognized the rights of the Lesbians,
Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders and Queers (LGBTQ+), but that invalidating Family Code
provisions on who can marry may disturb a barrage of gender-specific laws in many Philippine
statutes, such as taxation, family relations, labor, and even penal laws.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes same-sex marriage on the ground that
“marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman.” In 2003,
the conference stated that “what are called ‘homosexual unions’ [cannot be given the status of
marriage] because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are
inherently nonprocreative.” In 2006, the conference reaffirmed its previously stated support for a
federal marriage amendment (a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman). And in 2009, the conference issued a pastoral letter on marriage that once
again defined the institution as a “bond between one man and one woman.”

Mormon theology stipulates that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of
God.” As a result, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse same-sex
marriage.

Islamic law forbids homosexuality, and the practice of homosexuality is a crime in many
Islamic countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.
 The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, a position the church’s General Assembly reaffirmed in 2010. In 2000, however, the
General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – the denomination’s highest judicial body –
issued a decision allowing Presbyterian ministers to bless same-sex unions as long as those
ceremonies do not equate same-sex unions with marriage. Additionally, in 2004, the General
Assembly urged state legislatures to give individuals in same-gender relationships the right to be
joined in civil unions.

In 2008, the United Methodist Church’s top policymaking body reaffirmed that marriage
is between a man and a woman. Additionally, the UMC’s Judicial Council ruled in 2009 that
church law prohibits clergy from performing same-sex marriages. Thus, the denomination does
not sanction UMC ministers or UMC churches to conduct civil union ceremonies, despite
appeals from some regional congregations and clergy that it do so. During the 2012 meeting of
the General Conference, delegates voted down a resolution that would have struck from the
UMC’s Book of Doctrine and Rules language stating that homosexuality is “incompatible with
Christian teaching.” Delegates also tabled a proposal to allow churches to bless same-sex unions.

Same-sex marriage devalues traditional marriage and family. Why should the law, our
morals, tradition and nature be altered to fit something that is not normal? The family is the basic
unit of society. If man were to change the true essence of marriage and family, what becomes of
society? Philippine 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 remained outlawed
 Rebuttal

AFFIRMATIVE

The Philippines is ranked as one of the most gay-friendly nations in Asia. The country

ranked as the 10th-most gay-friendly in a 2013 global survey covering 39 countries, in which
only 17 had majorities accepting homosexuality. Titled "The Global Divide on Homosexuality",
the survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 73% of adult Filipinos agreed
with the statement that "homosexuality should be accepted by society", up by nine percentage
points from 64% in 2002. The high percentage of LGBT acceptance in the Philippines stem
mainly from the historical acceptance and role of LGBT people in
indigenous animistic anito religions before the advent of Islam in the late 14th century
and Christianity in the early 16th century; as well as growing public awareness on LGBT
discrimination. Despite this, LGBT people in the Philippines still experience discrimination and
disadvantages in comparison to the heterosexual population

in Obergefell v Hodges secularizes marriage and disconnects it from religion, 

gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual
counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold
the principle of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, there are very practical reasons behind
the fight for marriage equity. For instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for
years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by
heterosexual couples who legally marry — from the sharing of health and pension benefits to
hospital visitation rights.

Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a

minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex
marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems.

Rebuttal

NEGATIVE
 According to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and
the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage,
with 36% favoring it. But those with a high frequency of church attendance oppose it by a
substantially wider margin (73% in opposition vs. 21% in favor).

The doctrine of separation seeks to guarantee that the ‘government neither engage in nor
compel religious practices’, ‘effect no favoritism’, and ‘work deterrence of no religious
belief’. 6But note the ultimate irony: though the wall of separation was intended in American
constitutional tradition to keep the realms of God and Caesar apart, in the Philippines it is used to
carry out God’s will with Caesar’s sword. This is most evident in the legal institution of
marriage, which is characterized by the unabashed commingling of canon and civil law. Indeed,
apart from the Vatican, the Philippines is the only state in the world that does not allow for
absolute divorce. 

Homosexual couples are same sex, therefore if a gay or lesbian couple would
decide to have a child, they could opt for in vitro fertilization or hire a “baby-maker”. This would
render their children lacking or a father as parents would be either both male or female. This is
harmful for a growing child because naturally and biologically, children long for a both a father
and mother for their developmental 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 “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity
and Teenage Pregnancy?” by Bruce J Ellis. A 19999 Research by David Popenoe has also been
conducted which showed that “a father’s pheromones influence the biological development of
his daughter, the 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. Those raised by heterosexual parents can attest to this. A mother provides a sense of
emotional support much more than fathers do. 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.

Same sex marriage is against our religion, custom, tradition, and values. It poses wrong
image to the future generations.
CLOSING STATEMENT (NEGATIVE)
Marriage is a commitment between two individuals that is a universal concept. Marriage
has been a part of one’s life since before medieval times. It is a child’s dream from the very
beginning to fall in love and have that fairy tale wedding. When two people love each other and
plan to spend the rest of their lives with each other, the first instinct is to make it legal on paper and
get married.
Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex unions assert that marriage
between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable
families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and
lesbian couples to wed, they argue, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a
time when the institution is already in deep trouble due to high divorce rates and the significant
number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, they predict, giving gay couples the right to marry
will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the
right to marry as well.

CLOSING STATEMENT (AFFIRMATIVE)

According to researches, same sex marriage reduces the amount of annulment and
divorce cases and increases the chance of the children in different orphanages to be adopted and
grow up with a family. We already need to open our minds to the current situation of our world
today. Even some Church leaders are in favor of same sex marriage. Considering to put
ourselves in the shoes of other people, especially our LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Asexual) community. Life is short and happiness is
something that each one of us should keep in our hearts, so let people choose their path in life
and spend their lives with the person that they truly love. Love is love regardless of its gender.
Some people think that homosexuals are horrible persons that don’t deserve to be treated
with the same respect we treat heterosexuals. Truth is that we are all equals and sexual orientation
does not matter when comparing the skills we all have as individuals. There are a lot of differences
made in our society which includes sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and religion. Among these
differences, sexual orientation is definitely an important point to be discussed knowing that same-
sex marriage has been legalized nationwide. Even though we personally may think that same sex
marriage doesn’t affect us directly, some people are against them. Those who are against same sex
marriage try to cover themselves under the fact that their religion does not approve it. Being
homosexual does not mean that they will do bad actions to others, every group has its own kind of
individual. Saying that something or someone is not equal is making it different and we, as a
society, are more likely to be unjust with what is unusual. Inequalities should be considered as
injustices for the reason that people should be treated equally even though they could have
different sexual preferences. People should not use religion matter when judging homosexuality.
A marriage is between two people who make a promise to love one another
unconditionally.
Source:

Tom Rosententiel. (2008, April 1). An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/04/01/an-overview-of-the-samesex-marriage-debate/
Claire Felter. (2019, October 29). Same-Sex Marriage: Global Comparisons.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/same-sex-marriage-global-comparisons

Pew Research Center. (2012, December 7). Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Same-Sex
Marriage. https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-
sex-marriage/