PROS

Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to
have children would be prevented from marrying.

Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From 1970 through
2012 roughly 30% of all US households were married couples without children, and in 2012, married
couples without children outnumbered married couples with children by 9%. 

6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. 

In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both married and unmarried people rated love, commitment,
and companionship higher than having children as “very important” reasons to get married, and only
44% of unmarried people and 59% of married people rated having children as a very important
reason. 

marriage license would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are both over the age of
55, even though “there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.” 

Children and Your Rights

If you plan on having or raising children, your status as a couple greatly affects your rights regarding
your children. In marriage, both partners have the same rights and responsibilities. In annulment,
both partners can seek custody and visitation rights like any married couple. Upon death, the
remaining parent automatically becomes the primary legal parent.

Absent marriage, same-sex couples can sometimes turn to adoption in order to gain the rights of
legal parents. While no states may deny adoption to same-sex couples -- as long as they get married
-- unmarried couples may run into the same legal challenges unmarried opposite-sex couples face.

Legal Rights Protection

One of the most useful advantages of legalizing marriage is the protection it gives the couple when it
comes to health care, finances and taxes. Before, two people who are cohabitating and in a
homosexual relationship living as couples are not given the security of protecting what both have
them earned and saved together. If a partner dies, the surviving lover does not have the right to the
property under the name of the deceased even if both of them have paid for the property. With the
legalization of gay marriage, they are now considered by the state they live in as legally married so
they now can enjoy tax breaks given to heterosexual married couples and are entitled to become
heirs to their spouses. This also includes signing documents together as a couple and open joint
accounts and purchase properties together.

Joint Property Rights

Marriage generally creates a presumption of joint ownership of property accrued during the marriage.
The presumption is the opposite for unmarried couples, where your property will be presumed to be
owned by whoever acquired it. Deciding which presumption works best for you and your partner can
be helpful in deciding whether or not to get married.

Death and Taxes

Marriage creates a legal framework for dealing with issues that result from death, whether regarding
property, parental rights or taxes. To create these effects as an unmarried couple, significant time
and expenses will have to be spent establishing a similar relationship by contract. Even then, some
things can't be recreated through contract, such as freedom from inheritance and gift taxes.

Another issue to keep in mind is the host of property-transfer taxes that by default don't apply to
married couples, but do apply to unmarried couples. It can make moving assets around in a cost
efficient way very difficult for unmarried couples.
Lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, a self-identified gay man, said the Lesbian, Gays, Bisexual,
Transgender (LGBT) community counters the argument of conservative faith as they are pushing for
legality more than morality.

 “We have no legal rights for LGBT couples; on conjugal ownerships . 'Yung  partners  na
nagsama  for years, decades until death  may naipundar na 'yun sila pero pagka-namatay
'yung isa, sa mga kamag-anak na posibleng nagtakwil sa kanya pa ang makakatanggap
ng  properties  na nakapangalan sa kanya (Those who have been together for years, decades
until death have acquired properties together but in cases of one’s sudden death, his relatives,
who likely ostracized and despised him, are the ones receiving the property in his name, not
his partner),” he said during the Philippine News Agency’s Pros and Cons episode on same-sex
union.

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.

Initially, the lawyer insisted on a revisitation of Family Code's limit of marriages to heterosexual
couples. But through time, Congress resorted to another solution to address the issue since marriage,
according to the Constitution, is inviolable. It is also the main argument of those who oppose the
proposal.

Bataan first District Representative Geraldine Roman, the country's first transwoman legislator and a
supporter of the same-sex civil union bill, has said that the only difference between a civil union and
marriage is that marriage has a "religious connotation".

House Bill 6595, which legalizes civil unions and was filed by former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez at the
House of Representatives, is the better option. Roman said they have all been advocating for this.
The same-sex civil union has Duterte's nod because it "fixes the different aspects of the union of
those of the same sex," said former Palace spokesperson, lawyer Harry Roque.

To deny some people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a
second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits
enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional
and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their
families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them
unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” 

As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminated based on
one’s sex. As David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law,
explained, “Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill, and Tom… Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill,
a man, cannot… Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a
woman and Bill is a man.”

Additionally, legal same-sex marriage comes with mental and physical health benefits. The American
Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others concluded that legal gay
marriage gives couples “access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens
heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that
support.” 

A study found that same-sex married couples were “significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay,
and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship.”
A 2010 analysis found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual
people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a
248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders.

Lessens Stigma
Legalizing gay marriage also mitigated the discrimination and stigma on homosexuals because
making the union or marriage legal gives gay couples the affirmation that they are accepted not only
by society but also the state. For so many years, there have been stories about discrimination of
homosexuals as well as crime committed against them. Today, no one can be ostracized and
discriminated in the workplace or be denied from marrying his or her partner because of sexual
orientation.

Gives Equal Laws

Homosexual relationships are also the same with heterosexual relationships when it comes to the
mistakes or abuses that can happen between two people. However, unlike straight married couples
who can file for adultery, divorce and infidelity, gay couples were not given the same purview of the
law before. With gay marriage, married homosexuals can now file for divorce and sue their partners
with adultery or infidelity. Also, in case of divorce, the other one can receive alimony and their
children will be given child support.

CONS

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a
woman. Civil unions and domestic partnerships could provide the protections and
benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage.

Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships can include health insurance
benefits, inheritance without a will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation
rights. New laws could enshrine other benefits for civil unions and domestic partnerships that would
benefit same-sex couple as well as heterosexual couples who do not want to get married.

civil unions are adequate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefits are being bestowed to gay couples
[in civil unions I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual
foundation… Why can’t we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government
cannot bestow benefits unequally.”

43rd US President George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while in office: “I
don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state
chooses to do so… I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between
a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws
that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”

Marriage is for procreation. Same sex couples should be prohibited from marriage
because they cannot produce children together.

The purpose of marriage should not shift away from producing and raising children to adult
gratification. 

the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.

Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that “it is through children alone that sexual
relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” 

the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual
relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their
father… Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her
biological father.
Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or
don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly
infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to
procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically
capable of having them, and may change their minds.  

Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual
culture to the detriment of the homosexual community.

The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities
and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist.

Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means
adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even
gay and lesbian culture.”

Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation
of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.

Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should have been weakened, not
expanded.

LGBT activist collective Against Equality stated, “Gay marriage apes hetero privilege… [and] increases
economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics
like health care and economic rights.”

The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, “We expose the institution of
marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the
microcosm of oppression.” 

Queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that the then campaign for gay marriage
“intentionally and maliciously erases and excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly
trans and gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and queer people in non-traditional
families… marriage thinks non-married people are deviant and not truly deserving of civil rights.” 

Formalities

Marriage, for all of its pros and cons, requires that certain formalities be performed, which may or
may not be what you want. Unmarried couples can get together, and break up, without all the
formalities (and court hearings) required for married couples.

Dividing Your Property

One of the effects of marriage's joint property status is that if you divorce, regardless of who is at
fault, both partners are often entitled to half of the property accumulated during the marriage,
depending on whether the divorce occurs in a community property state. Note that this also applies
to liability for debts. As a result, many former couples become embroiled in costly legal battles over
the division of assets in divorce.

For unmarried couples, on the other hand, each partner typically leaves with whatever they
accumulated and responsibility for debts in their name. However, married couples have a right to
seek alimony, whereas unmarried couples may have to account for this in a pre-marriage agreement.

Affects Child Development

Even if gay parents are allowed to adopt or have children, having two parents of the same sex might
not be healthy or what’s best for the children involved. These kids need both a father and a mother
image to have a balance and normal childhood. Gender roles can be hard to play especially if
biological and physical aspects are the issue. If a boy grows up with two women, with the other one
playing the role of the father or both plays the role of mothers, father image will be lacking and the
couple cannot answer questions typically asked by boys to fathers, say, the physical changes in the
body. Same goes for girls living with two-male parents.

Prone to Bullying
Even if gay marriage is already legalized, not all accept and embrace this practice, particularly kids.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that making this marriage between homosexuals legal can bring
problems in the future especially when children are involved. Children of homosexuals and lesbians
may be prone to bullying at schools and some even end up being physically hurt by other kids.

Affects Adoption Process

By allowing married gay couples to legally adopt children and given that they might find it difficult
and expensive to have children of their own, there will be an increase in the number of child adoption
applications. This might lead to more straight couples who are also interested to adopt not being
given priority since they have bigger chances to have their own children.
Despite the legalization of gay marriage, this topic will remain to be a contentious issue especially
that not all can accept and will accept the idea of two people with the same gender to be married in
a religious ceremony.

Adoption
Same-sex couples may not file for joint adoption, given that same-sex unions is not recognized under
the law. However, according to the eligibility requirements which govern Philippine domestic
adoption, there are no explicit laws that bar LGBTQ+ individuals from adopting children. The
requirements for being a prospective adopter do not take into consideration the adopter's sexual
orientation or gender identity
While this is the case, prospective LGBT adopters may still be considered unfit to adopt if the state
decides that they do not have "good moral character". The Civil Code, the Family Code, and the Child
and Youth Welfare Code require that parents must be able to provide moral formation for the child.
The abstract nature of this parental duty leaves the term open to interpretation. Depending on the
inclinations of the state, someone who is LGBTQ+ may not be allowed to exercise parental authority
over a child because the state has judged them as "immoral".

-------------------------------------------

What are the disadvantages of same-sex marriage?

Marriage is more than just a contract between two individuals. It plays a regulatory role in our lives
and is a state system for organizing and allocating rights, responsibilities and public resources.
Married low-income couples that live near the poverty line may face economic disadvantages because
they often lose their entitlement to state benefits since their individual incomes are combined.
Entitlement to student loans or social assistance can be lost when a couple is legally recognized.
Proponents of marriage typically only talk about the benefits that marriage will bring, but not the
penalties.

Why do we need a critical look at the institution of marriage?

Strategies that promote marriage as a primary social and legal institution reinforce the notion that
those who live in other ways, such as unmarried or single adults, are somehow inferior. People come
to see marriage as the preferred sphere in which to raise children, which suggests that children born
into unmarried or single parent homes are disadvantaged from the get-go.

Pros and cons of same sex marriage: The debate

The debate on same sex marriage pros and cons majorly arises from the fact that people have
different beliefs and value systems. The discussions on gay marriages pros and cons may talk about
the wrongs or rights but the one thing that’s absolute in all of this is that any marriage is a union of
two people who have chosen to be with each other. Yes. Each other. So is it right for the society at
large to intervene in this to weigh the pros and cons of gay marriage, measure the benefits of same
sex marriage to society or talk about cons of same sex marriage?
The top six arguments against gay marriage (and why they all fail)
By Eric Zorn

Gay marriage violates tradition

Yes, most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds if
not thousands of years. But tradition is a mixed bag. It includes slavery and grotesque exploitation
of workers, or course, the denial of rights to women and the execution of those who committed
thought and property crimes. Traditionally, we treated illnesses with ineffective or dangerous
mumbo jumbo, cast aside the disabled and righteously persecuted those with differing religious
views.

Integrating a society and expanding human rights has always shattered tradition, and we have
consistently been better off for it.

Gay couples can't produce children

Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for

procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the
benefit of all. But that's not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows
prisoners to marry even when they're likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples
getting married, imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers
long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual
couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework
of marriage.

Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads

"My intuitive sense and common sense tell me there are benefits to heterosexual two-parent
situations," he wrote "Legions of people with years of parenting wisdom think there is a difference
between two dads or moms, and one of each. The burden of proof is on those who want to set
aside the widely accepted norm."

First, no, when it comes to denying a basic right to a class of people, the burden of proof falls on
those who rely on intuition and common sense – which, I'm just sayin', happen to be the support
pillars of all forms of bigotry – rather than evidence.

Benefits? Harms? Quantify them or stand down.

Making that case won't be easy. Studies show little developmental or social difference between
children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by homosexual parents. In fact on 2010
study in the journal Pediatrics found that children of lesbians scored better in such areas as self
esteem, behavior and academic performance than children of straight parents.

Second, even if we concede for the sake of discussion that a stable, loving male-female couple is
the gold standard for parenting, it's otherwise offensive to deny those who fall short of the gold
standard the right to marry.

For instance, even if data-mining researchers could demonstrate a strong probability that certain
pairings would produce suboptimal parents --- couples without high school diplomas, say, or
couples with a 30-year gap in their ages or couples with three or more divorces between them --
we would never think of denying such couples marriage licenses.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing
polygamy

The practical and philosophical arguments pro and con for multiple-partner marriages (hey, you
want to talk about tradition!) are largely distinct from the arguments pro and con about marriage
equality. Historians find, for instance, that it destabilizes a society when some men take many
wives and leave large numbers of other men without the opportunity to mate.

Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the basic idea of two people agreeing to unite for
life and taking on the responsibilities and privileges of that agreement.

Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures
and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just
as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn't slid helplessly down the
slope to legalize them both.

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual

marriage.

I almost didn't include this argument on the list because it's faded so dramatically in recent years
as country after country, state after state has allowed gays and lesbians to marry with no
measurable detriment to straight marriage or conventional families.

If anything, philosophically, the fervor with which same-sex couples demand to be granted the
dignity and respect of legal marriage underscores the value of marriage and ought to remind us
straight couples not to take it lightly or for granted.