Debate Samesex

8/18/2019 Debate Samesex

1/46

Same-sex marriage should be legal

In light of the recent victories of the LGBT rights movement in the U.N. Petition suorted b!almost "# countries$ including the entire %.U. and the United States$ and the decriminali&ation of homosexualit! in India$ it is time no' to examine the next ste to'ards granting this minorit!e(ual rights.

)ith onl! " countries and * states from the U.S. ermitting same-sex marriage and another +#or so ermitting civil unions$ this issue is far from resolved.Proosition believes marriage$ not ,ust civil artnershis$ not ,ust decriminali&ation$ is a humanright 'hich is being denied to the LGBT communit!. )e acno'ledge that it is hard to exectman! countries that criminali&e LGBT behavior$ some even as a caital offense$ to mae thehuge lea to'ards legali&ing same sex marriage$ but 'e believe this should be end goal inthese countries.

ll the /es oints

0inorit! 1iscrimination

Imortance of Government

%xanding the 2ight to 0arr! Serves the State

0ore than ,ust ga! rights

Inade(uac! of lternative 3ategories

Lac of legal categor! reinforces negative stereot!es

Governments should not discourage eole from their identit!

2ebuttal4 This is Not a Small 1ebate

2ebuttal4 0ore than ga! rights

2ebuttal4 )hat5s in a )ord... %ver!thing66

2ebuttal4 1emocrac! or 0a,oritarianism

2ebuttal4 The road to true e(ualit!$ legal or social77

2ebuttal4 Stereot!es- Proagation and imact.

Proosition Summar!

http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes1http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes2http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes3http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes4http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes5http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes6http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes7http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes8http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes9http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes10http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes11http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes12http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes13http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes14http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes2http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes3http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes4http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes5http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes6http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes7http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes8http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes9http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes10http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes11http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes12http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes13http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes14http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#yes1


2/46

ll the No oints

8utline of 8osition 3lash4 defence of the status (uo

9orcing change in liberal democracies is itself illiberal

0oral and legal luralism in relation to same-sex marriage is accetable

It creates a social baclash that damages substantive e(ualit! for homosexuals

2ebuttal :4 In defence of ublic oinion

2ebuttal +4 0oral and legal luralism5s rightful lace

2ebuttal ;4 4 The danger of utting the liberal cart before the homohobic horse

ggressive olicies retard gradual social change4 'h! the case for luralism 'on ?8ositionSummar!@

http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no1http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no2http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no3http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no4http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no5http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no6http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no7http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no8http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no9http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no10http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no10http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no1http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no2http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no3http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no4http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no5http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no6http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no7http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no8http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no9http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no10http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/#no10


3/46

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sexmarriageExamining the most common

arguments for redening maritalunions ...and understanding why they

are awed Brandon Vogt OSVNewsweeklyPerhas no issue is more nerve-'racing toda! than same-sexmarriage. ItAs a magnet for controvers!$ evoing strong reactionsfrom those on either side of the debate. But beneath all the fier!

assion and rhetoric$ there are real arguments to evaluate. In thisarticle$ 'eAll examine the :# most common ones made in favor ofsame-sex marriage$ man! of 'hich !ouAve robabl! heard before.B! ointing out the fla's$ 'eAll sho' ho' each argumentultimatel! comes u short.


4/46

1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it canchange again.

1ifferent cultures have treated marriage differentl!. Some

romoted arranged marriages. 8thers tied marriage to do'ries.Still others sa' marriage as a olitical relationshi through 'hichthe! could forge famil! alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental$unchanging essence of marriage. The! still sa' it$ in general$ as aublic$ lifelong artnershi bet'een one man and one 'oman forthe sae of generating and raising children.

This understanding redates an! government or religion. ItAs are-olitical$ re-religious institution evident even in cultures thathad no la' or faith to romote it.

/et$ even suosing the essence of marriage could change$'ould that mean it should7 )e no' from other areas of life suchas medical research and nuclear h!sics that ,ust because !ou

can do something doesnAt mean !ou ought. fter all$ such actionma! not be ethical or serve the common good. %ven if thisargument had historical basis$ it 'ould not necessaril! be a goodreason to change the meaning of marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionall! o'erful since 'e all have dee$innate longings for fairness and e(ualit!. 0oreover$ histor! has

given us man! failures in this area$ including 'omen banned fromvoting and frican-mericans denied e(ual civil rights. The(uestion$ of course$ is 'hether same-sex coules are deniede(ualit! b! not being allo'ed to marr! each other.


5/46

To ans'er that$ 'e first must understand e(ualit!. %(ualit! is note(uivalenc!. It does not mean treating ever! erson or ever!grou in exactl! the same 'a!. To use an analog!$ men and'omen have e(ual rights$ but because the! significantl! differ

the! re(uire searate restrooms. %(ualit! means treating similarthings similarl!$ but not things that are fundamentall! different.

Second$ there are reall! t'o issues here4 the e(ualit! of differenteole and the e(ualit! of different relationshis. The currentmarriage la's alread! treat all eole e(uall!. n! unmarried manand unmarried 'oman can marr! each other$ regardless of theirsexual orientationC the la' is neutral 'ith resect to orientation

,ust as it ignores race and religion.

The real (uestion is 'hether same-sex relationshis differsignificantl! from oosite-sex relationshis$ and the ans'er is!es. The largest difference is that same-sex coules cannotroduce children$ nor ensure a childAs basic right to be raised b!his mother and father. These facts alone mean 'eAre taling aboutt'o ver! different t!es of relationshis. ItAs 'rong$ therefore$ toassume the state should necessaril! treat them as if the! 'erethe same.

Same-sex marriage advocates ma! argue that itAs discriminator!to favor heterosexual souses over homosexual coules. )ith allof the benefits flo'ing from marriage$ this unfairl! endorses oneset of relationshis over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage$ it 'ould then be favoring ga! DsousesE overunmarried heterosexual coules. The argument runs both 'a!s

and is ultimatel! self-defeating.


6/46

. !veryone has the right to marry "homever he orshe loves.

Though catch!$ fe' eole trul! believe this slogan. 0ost of us

acno'ledge there should be at least some limitations onmarriage for social or health reasons. 9or examle$ a man canAtmarr! a !oung child or a close relative. nd if a man is trul! inlove 'ith t'o different 'omen$ heAs legall! not allo'ed to marr!both of them$ even if both agree to such an arrangement.

So$ the real (uestion here is not 'hether marriage should belimited$ but ho'. To ans'er that$ 'e must determine 'h! the

government even bothers 'ith marriage. ItAs not to validate t'oeole 'ho love each other$ nice as that is. ItAs because marriagebet'een one man and one 'oman is liel! to result in a famil!'ith children. Since the government is deel! interested in theroagation and stabili&ation of societ!$ it romotes and regulatesthis secific t!e of relationshi above all others.

To ut it siml!$ in the e!es of the state$ marriage is not about

adultsC itAs about children. 3laiming a Dright to marr! 'homever IloveE ignores the true emhasis of marriage.

Notice that nobod! is telling an!one 'hom he or she can orcannot love. %ver! erson$ regardless of orientation$ is free toenter into rivate romantic relationshis 'ith 'homever he or shechooses. But there is no general right to have an! relationshirecogni&ed as marriage b! the government.

#. Same-sex marriage "on$t affect you, so "hat$s the big deal%

Since marriage is a relationshi bet'een t'o individuals$ 'hateffect 'ould it have on the rest of us7 t first glance$ it sounds lie


7/46

a good (uestion$ but a deeer loo reveals that since marriage isa ublic institution$ redefining it 'ould affect all of societ!.

9irst$ it 'ould 'eaen marriage. fter same-sex marriage 'as

legislated in Sain in +##>$ marriage rates lummeted. The samehaened in the Netherlands. 2edefining marriage obscures itsmeaning and urose$ thereb! discouraging eole from taing itseriousl!.

Second$ it 'ould affect education and arenting. fter same-sexmarriage 'as legali&ed in 3anada$ the Toronto School Boardimlemented a curriculum romoting homosexualit! and

denouncing Dheterosexism.E The! also roduced osters titledDLove Fno's No Gender$E 'hich deicted both homosexual andol!gamous relationshis as e(uivalent to marriage. 1esitearentsA ob,ections$ the board decreed that the! had no right toremove their children from such instruction. This and man! similar cases confirm that 'hen marriage is redefined$ the ne' definitionis forced on children$ regardless of their arentsA desires.Third$redefining marriage 'ould threaten moral and religious libert!.This is alread! evident in our o'n countr!. In 0assachusetts and)ashington$ 1.3.$ for instance$ 3atholic 3harities can no longerrovide charitable adotion services based on ne' definitions ofmarriage. %lse'here$ 3anadian Bisho 9rederic


8/46

siml! a loving$ romantic union bet'een committed adults$ 'hatrinciled reason 'ould 'e have for re,ecting ol!gamist orol!amorous that is$ multile-erson relationshis asmarriages7

Thomas Peters$ cultural director at the National 8rgani&ation for0arriage$ doesnAt see one. D8nce !ou sever the institution ofmarriage from its biological roots$ there is little reason to ceaseredefining it to suit the demands of various interest grous$EPeters said.

This isnAt ,ust scaremongering or a h!othetical slier! sloe.

These aftereffects have alread! been observed in countries thathave legali&ed same-sex marriage. 9or examle$ in Bra&il and theNetherlands$ three-'a! relationshis 'ere recentl! granted thefull rights of marriage. fter marriage 'as redefined in 3anada$ aol!gamist man launched legal action to have his relationshisrecogni&ed b! la'. %ven in our o'n countr!$ the 3aliforniaLegislature assed a bill to legali&e families of three or morearents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to t'oeole. )hen sexual love relaces children as the rimar!urose of marriage$ restricting it to ,ust t'o eole no longermaes sense.

'. (f same-sex couples can$t marry because they can$treproduce, "hy can infertile couples marry%

This argument concerns t'o relativel! rare situations4 !oungerinfertile coules and elderl! coules. If marriage is about children$'h! does the state allo' the first grou to marr!7 The reason isthat 'hile 'e no' ever! same-sex coule is infertile$ 'e donAtgenerall! no' that about oosite-sex coules.


9/46

Some suggest forcing ever! engaged coule to undergomandator! fertilit! testing before marriage. But this 'ould beoutrageous. Besides being rohibitivel! exensive$ it 'ould alsobe an egregious invasion of rivac!$ all to detect an extremel!

small minorit! of coules.

nother roblem is that infertilit! is often misdiagnosed. 9ertilecoules ma! be 'rongl! denied marriage under such a scenario.This is never the case for same-sex coules$ 'ho cannot roducechildren together.

But 'h! does the government allo' elderl! coules to marr!7 ItAs

true that most elderl! coules cannot reroduce though 'omenas old as "# have been no'n to give birthH.


10/46

ga! arents and their children. Several used extremel! smallDconvenienceE samles$ recruiting articiants throughadvertisements or 'ord of mouth$ and man! failed to even includea control grou. 9urthermore$ the studies did not trac the

children over time and 'ere largel! based on intervie's 'itharents about the ubringing of their o'n children a virtualguarantee of biased results.

8ne month later$ Texas sociologist 0ar 2egnerus released acomrehensive stud! titled D


11/46

So$ is the charge accurate7 )ell$ the definition of bigotr! isDun'illing to tolerate oinions different than !our o'n.E


12/46

ho'ever$ is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage aresignificantl! different.

9or instance$ nothing revents interracial coules from fulfilling

the basic essence of marriage a ublic$ lifelong relationshiordered to'ard rocreation. Because of this$ the anti-miscegenation la's of the :J*#s 'ere 'rong to discriminateagainst interracial coules. /et same-sex coules are notbiologicall! ordered to'ard rocreation and$ therefore$ cannotfulfill the basic re(uirements of marriage.

ItAs imortant to note that frican-mericans$ 'ho have the most

oignant memories of marital discrimination$ generall! disagreethat reventing interracial marriage is lie banning same-sexmarriage. 9or examle$ 'hen 3alifornians voted on Proosition $a state amendment defining marriage as bet'een one man andone 'oman$ some "# ercent of frican-mericans voted infavor.

ccording to Peters$ DLiening same-sex marriage to interracialmarriage is u&&ling and offensive to most frican-mericans$'ho are shoced at such a comarison.E

1. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so "e shouldstand on the right side of history.

8n Nov. *$ voters in three states 0aine$ 0ar!land and)ashington voted against marriage as it has traditionall! beenunderstood. In 0innesota$ voters re,ected a measure to amend

the state constitution to define marriage as bet'een one man andone 'oman. 0an! advocates of same-sex marriage consideredthis a sign that the marriage tides are turning. But is that true7

nd if so$ ho' does that shift imact the case for same-sexmarriage7


13/46

9irst$ if the tide is in fact turning$ itAs still little more than a rile.The states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so'ith slim margins$ none garnering more than >; ercent of thevote. The tin! victories 'ere desite record-breaing funding

advantages$ sitting governors camaigning for same-sexmarriage and strong suort among the media.

Before these four aberrations$ ;+ states had voted on thedefinition of marriage. %ach and ever! time the! voted to affirmmarriage as the union of one man and one 'oman. 8f the sixstates that recogni&ed same-sex marriage before the Novemberelection$ none arrived there through a vote b! the eole. %achredefinition 'as imosed b! state legislatures and courts. 8verall$

mericans remain strongl! in favor of traditional marriage. 0ostolls sho' roughl! t'o-thirds of the countr! 'ants to eemarriage as it is.

/et$ even if the tides have recentl! shifted$ that does not maearguments in its favor an! more ersuasive. )e donAt loo toother moral issues and sa!$ D)ell$ eole are eventuall! going toaccet it$ so 'e might as 'ell get in line.E )e shouldnAt do that forsame-sex marriage$ either.


14/46

How To Argue For Gay Marriage and Win

Any Debate With a Hater

SETH MILLSTEIN

February 20, 2014NEWS

So you’re at a party, and the conversation turns topolitics. It’s all going swimmingly, but then someone says

something ignorant. And while you know that they’re in

the wrong, and that you could totally engage them and

win if you were a bit more prepared, your words escape

you. Pretty soon, the conversation has moved on, and the

moment is lost.

To make sure that doesn’t happen, we’ve compiled a

series of handy reference guides with the most common

arguments and your counter!arguments for all of

the hot!button issues of the day. This week’s topic" #ow

to argue for gay marriage.

*ommon rgument 314 5ay marriage harms the

institution of traditional marriage.

http://www.bustle.com/authors/67-seth-millsteinhttp://www.bustle.com/newshttp://www.bustle.com/articles/9771-5-topics-to-avoid-at-thanksgiving-if-you-dont-want-to-get-political-with-your-familyhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/9771-5-topics-to-avoid-at-thanksgiving-if-you-dont-want-to-get-political-with-your-familyhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/14702-piers-morgans-janet-mock-interview-was-very-insensitive-the-outrage-is-warrantedhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/14702-piers-morgans-janet-mock-interview-was-very-insensitive-the-outrage-is-warrantedhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/15849-indiana-gets-closer-to-a-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriagehttp://www.bustle.com/articles/15849-indiana-gets-closer-to-a-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriagehttp://www.bustle.com/authors/67-seth-millsteinhttp://www.bustle.com/newshttp://www.bustle.com/articles/9771-5-topics-to-avoid-at-thanksgiving-if-you-dont-want-to-get-political-with-your-familyhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/9771-5-topics-to-avoid-at-thanksgiving-if-you-dont-want-to-get-political-with-your-familyhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/14702-piers-morgans-janet-mock-interview-was-very-insensitive-the-outrage-is-warrantedhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/14702-piers-morgans-janet-mock-interview-was-very-insensitive-the-outrage-is-warrantedhttp://www.bustle.com/articles/15849-indiana-gets-closer-to-a-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriagehttp://www.bustle.com/articles/15849-indiana-gets-closer-to-a-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage


15/46

6our Response" $kay, then name one demonstrable,

tangible effect that same!se% marriages have on the

functioning of individual heterose%ual marriages. The

ability of same!se% couples to get married doesn’t alter a

single aspect of heterose%ual marriages directly or

indirectly. The legal rights and benefits of heterose%ual

couples are completely unaffected by the e%istence of gay

marriage. It’s not as if straight couples suddenly start

loving each other less or start treating their kids worse

once gay people start getting married.

#ave marriage rates been in decline since states started

legali&ing gay marriage' (ell, sure, but marriage rates

have been declining steadily since the )*+s, decades

before any -.S. urisdictions legali&ed gay marriage.

*ommon rgument 324 Marriage has al"ays

been bet"een a man and a "oman. 7egali8ing

gay marriage "ould be changing thousands of

years of tradition.

6our response4 A lot of things were /always that way0 before they were changed. 1or e%ample"

• 2ictatorial rule by kings and emperors

http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-13.pdfhttp://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-13.pdf


16/46

• 3ack of any legally recogni&ed human rights

• Prohibition on land ownership by people without

royal blood

• 4itual human sacrifice

• 5uring medical ailments with spells and magic

Should we go back to doing all of that'

(hy is long!standing tradition a good reason to prohibit

gay marriage'

*ommon rgument 34 he purpose of marriage

is to procreate, and same-sex couples can$t have

children.

6our Response" So should we also prohibit straight

couples from getting married if they’re biologically

incapable of having kids' (hat about if they simply don’t

want kids'

The percentage of married couples with children has

been declining over the last 67 years, but couples who

don8t want kids can still get married. And does adoption

count' 9ecause around )* percent of same!se% couples

adopt kids.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/08/nation/la-na-childless-couples-20131208http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/08/nation/la-na-childless-couples-20131208http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/as-overall-percentage-of-same-sex-couples-raising-children-declines-those-adopting-almost-doubles-significant-diversity-among-lesbian-and-gay-families/


17/46

In addition, there are plenty of legal benefits like

hospital visitation rights, oint ta% returns, welfare

benefits for spouses, and estate inheritance that

married couples enoy regardless of whether or not they

choose to have children. Should the government prevent

straight couples from receiving those benefits until they

have kids'

*ommon rgument 3#4 (f "e legali8e gay

marriage, it9s a slippery slope to polygamy,

incest, and:or bestiality.

6our Response" I’m arguing for one law, and one law

only" 3egal marriage rights for same!se% couples.

Anything else is a different policy argument altogether.

$verturning bans on gay marriage has no legal effect onpolygamous, incestuous, or sigh human being!

animal relationships. Those are separate areas of law,

and they won’t be affected by the e%istence of marriage

rights for gay couples.

If you’re saying that allowing gay marriage will set a legalprecedent for legali&ing other types of relationships, you

need to have some sort of evidence as to why that might

happen. And saying that you, personally, think that

homose%uality is in the same category as incest isn’t


18/46

evidence. It’s a moral udgment, and the Supreme 5ourt

has ruled against laws based onpersonal moral

udgments.

Also, dogs can’t physically sign contracts, so they’ll never

be able to get married anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/national/19RULI.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/national/19RULI.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/national/19RULI.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/national/19RULI.html


19/46

*ommon rgument 3&4 *hildren raised by a

mother and a father are more emotionally "ell-

ad/usted than those raised by same-sex parents.


20/46

6our Response" :ero data supports this assertion, and

studies from around the world have all supported the

opposite conclusion. #ere’s what a 6); Australian

study comparing gay and straight families concluded"

$n measures of general health and family cohesion,

children aged 7!)+ years with same!se% attracted parents

showed a significantly better score when compared to

Australian children from all backgrounds and family

conte%ts. 1or all other health measures, there were no

statistically significant differences.

#ere’s an American study from the same year that

focused on adopted children"

An estimated )


21/46

=%tensive data available from more than ; years of

research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian

parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to

social, psychological, and se%ual health despite economic

and legal disparities and social stigma. >any studies

have demonstrated that children8s well!being is affected

much more by their relationships with their parents,

their parents8 sense of competence and security, and the

presence of social and economic support for the family

than by the gender or the se%ual orientation of their

parents.

In short, there’s no evidence to support the claim that

children with same!se% parents are worse of and, once

again, /I have an intuitive feeling that they probably are

worse off0 doesn’t count as evidence.

*ommon rgument 3'4 (f same-sex marriage is

legal, religious institutions that oppose gay

marriage "ill be unfairly forced to marry gay

couples.

6our Response" 3egali&ing gay marriage won’t have

any bearing on what churches, or other religious

institutions, can or can’t do. The Supreme 5ourt haslong

upheld the right of ta%!e%empt religious organi&ations to

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.html


22/46

fire, hire, discriminate or not discriminate based on

gender and se%ual orientation. (hile same!se% couples

in 2enmark do have the legal right to get married in

churches, there’s &ero precedent for -.S. courts ruling

the same way.

*ommon rgument 3)4 *ivil unions are /ust as

good as gay marriages.

6our Response4 /Separate but e?ual0 was theargument used in favor of racial segregation in schools.

=ver since the landmark Brown v. Board of

Education ruling in )*7@, the Supreme 5ourt has

consistently found separate!but!e?ual laws to be

unconstitutional.

• #eterose%ual couples are allowed to get married

regardless of whether they can, or want to, have

children.

• There were a lot of atrocious practices that were

longstanding human traditions before we

outlawed them.

• 3egali&ing gay marriages won’t have any effect on

religious institutions or the legal status of

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html


23/46

bestiality. There’s no legal precedent to suggest

that it will.

• umerous studies from around the world showthat same!se% couples raise more emotionally

well!adusted children than their straight

counterparts.


24/46

Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Question

10)

In all !"##$ the %ndergraduate ellows enrolled inthe &aw$ 'eligion$ and &i(erty of )onscience Seminarinter*iewed ex+erts a(out the role of conscience in,merican life$ law and +olitics. Below are some oftheir res+onses to the students- tenth uestion/

Many critics of legislation that denes

marriage as exclusively between a male andfemale end up asserting that the underlying(and sometimes only) foundation of thisposition is animus, hostility, or moralopprobrium towards homosexuals andhomosexual activity. Many proponents of suchlegislation assert that this is a fundamentalmisapprehension of their position and that therole and function of marriage has a deep-seated moral tradition that is natural andrational (and thus part of the state'slegitimate interests). hether in litigation orin public discourse, how might thesearguments be sharpened!

Richard W. Garnett:

I-m not sure. I do not (elie*e that o++osition to theex+ansion of ci*il marriage$ (y courts or (ylegislatures$ to include same0sex unions necessarily$


25/46

or e*en usually$ in*ol*es animus or hostility to gay+eo+le. But$ that is how this o++osition is +ercei*ed(y many sincere +eo+le$ and this makes dialogue

and com+romise di1cult.

Ira “Chip” Lupu:

I really dislike the use of the word 2natural3 todescri(e social norms. Natural does not meanfreuent or ty+ical. )rime is as natural as lo*ing(eha*ior$ (ut we ha*e social norms that condemn

the former and commend the latter. If natural is 4usta surrogate for 2as 5od ins+ired or intended$3 thenit-s a cheat word$ (eing used to smuggle religiousideas into a de(ate a(out the secular good. Ofcourse$ not all o++osition to homosexuality is+re4udice or hostility. But all of it is irreduci(lyreligion0(ased. I ha*e yet to hear a +lausi(le$ fully

secular moral argument against same0sex intimacy6as I suggest$ arguments from what is 7natural7 arenot honest secular arguments8 they are religiouslynormati*e$ (ut masuerading as something else.9

Steven D. Smith:

:here are reasons why a great deal of contem+orary

argumentation takes the form of accusing one-so++onents of animus$ hatred$ or (igotry. :heSu+reme )ourt itself has +owerfully contri(uted to$and in a sense e*en reuired$ this sort of rhetoric ofdemoni;ation. I think this is a highly unfortunate and


26/46

destructi*e feature of contem+orary discourse$ (ut Idon-t ex+ect it to go away any time soon (ecause$once again$ current conditions *irtually demand such

rhetoric. Nonetheless$ it would (e good if ad*ocateswould try to a*oid it.

Douglas Laycoc:

:hey could (e shar+ened most o(*iously (y clearlydistinguishing legal marriage from religiousmarriage. &egal marriage is a(out a set of legal

rights/ a(out mutual duties of su++ort$ socialinsurance$ inheritance$ 4oint tax returns$ 4oint(ankru+tcy lings$ e*identiary +ri*ileges$ em+loyeefringe (enets$ suits for wrongful death and +ersonalin4ury. :hese legal rights are tied to a humanrelationshi+ that in*ol*es a long0term mutualcommitment$ (ut they are not tied to any religious

understanding of marriage. ,nd whether or not thereligious understanding is fairly characteri;ed assim+le (igotry$ a religious understanding is not acom+elling go*ernmental interest8 it is not a (asisfor o*erriding constitutional rights.

!ar R. Wicclair:

:he claim that a +rohi(ition of same sex marriage is(ased on 2a dee+0seated moral tradition that isnatural and rational 6and thus +art of the state-slegitimate interests93 sim+ly (egs the uestion. Onemight ha*e ad*anced the same claim$ not too long


27/46

ago$ to defend +rohi(itions of interracial marriage$not to mention integrated schools and +u(licaccommodations.

Caroline !ala Cor"in:

:he only (asis for o++osition to same0sex marriageis religious. or the state to deny some +eo+lefundamental rights in order to codify other +eo+leer seculararguments in litigation$ (ut these arguments oftenseem like makeweight su(stitutes for the real (asisfor their +osition?which is grounded on religious(eliefs.

I think we confront a related +ro(lem in e*aluatingthe argument that o++osition to same0sex marriageis (ased on animus or hostility toward homosexualsor homosexual acti*ity. @ow do we tell whetherreligious o++osition to an acti*ity or a class should


28/46

(e characteri;ed as (igotryA If a +erson sincerely(elie*es according to his inter+retation of scri+turethat 50d intended the races to li*e se+arately$ is that

+erson a (igotA ,re sincere$ theologically0(asednegati*e attitudes toward ews$ )atholics$ orCuslims a form of (igotryA :he same uestion can(e asked with regard to religiously (ased o++ositionto same0sex marriage.

&elson 'e""e:

D I think this is a uestion of contested socialmeaning. I don-t think there-s any uestion that=ro+. de*alues same0sex marriage$ (ut it may doso only incidentally$ as a side e>ect of 7+reser*ing7di>erent0sex ci*il marriage. )ourts determine socialmeaning all the time$ +articularly in the context ofreligious endorsements and in the context of eual

+rotection. :o my mind$ the social meaning of same0sex marriage exclusions clearly does denigratesame0sex marriage 6and may(e those who+artici+ate in it9 (ut this is contested$ as theuestion notes.


29/46

The former la' dean of the Universit! of the Philiines said sa!ing den!ing LGBTI coules

the right to marr! 'as unconstitutional.

Pacifico gabin made the comments at a rofessional lecture given b! retired Sureme

3ourt ssociate ustice ose Mitug.

The In(uirer (uoted gabin as sa!ing$ The 9amil! 3odeAs concet of marriage as a

contract bet'een a man and a 'oman aside from being obsolete$ violates the e(ual

rotection clause of the 3onstitution.

In m! oinion to bar the lesbians$ the ga!s$ the transsexuals and homosexuals from the

civil right to marr! 'ould violate the guarantee of e(ual rotection.A


30/46

MANILA, Philippines - Same-sex marriage is impossible to be legalized in the country,

Speaker eliciano !elmonte "r# said yesterday#

$rom the point o% &ie' o% our culture, it(s an impossibility %or )uite some time,* he told

reporters#

+e said he does not see ongress appro&ing a bill allo'ing same sex marriage because it

is against the ilipinos( culture#

$he la' li&es 'ithin the culture and not the other 'ay around,* he said#

In the same breath, !elmonte said he does not see e%%orts to ha&e ongress pass a di&orce

bill succeeding#

$I don(t think 'e are going into something like that anytime soon,* he added#

@eadlines 6 ,rticle C'ec 9$ +agematch/ #$ sectionmatch/ #

+e pointed out that despite the absence o% a di&orce la', couples 'ith irreconcilable

di%%erences could a&ail themsel&es o% legal separation or annulment o% marriage#

$he rules on annulment ha&e been eased# hat(s 'hy there are many couples applying

%or annulment o% marriage,* he added#

.hile he is not in %a&or o% same-sex marriage, !elmonte stressed that he is $/00 percent

against discrimination on the basis o% gender#*

+e said he hoped the +ouse could pass a bill prohibiting such kind o% discrimination#


31/46

"#hilippines won$t follow move$

Sen# A)uilino Pimentel III expressed doubt that the Philippines 'ill %ollo' the mo&e o%

the 1S Supreme ourt that allo'ed same sex marriage in all o% its 20 states#

Pimentel said policy-makers 'ould %ear the backlash o% the atholic hurch, a big

in%luence o&er state a%%airs in the country#

+e said same sex marriage may not e&en be constitutional under Philippine la's#

1nlike in the la's co&ering abortion and reproducti&e health, Pimentel pointed out that

there is no la' yet on same-sex marriage in the country#

$.e cannot al'ays imitate 'hat they do in America in terms o% the la' because they

ha&e di%%erent legal minds# hey ha&e a di%%erent onstitution compared to ours# .e ha&eour la's on abortion, %or example,* Pimentel said#

$I think it(s impossible %or us no',* he said#

$he atholic hurch has a strong in%luence on our moral sense o% right or 'rong, 'hich

is in our la's# 3ur la's ha&e atholic in%luence, 'hich 'ill be a big opposition on same-

sex marriage#*

Same-sex marriage is still $out o% the radar* o% the Philippines, Pimentel said# 4 With

Christina Mendez

@eadlines 6 ,rticle C'ec 9$ +agematch/ #$ sectionmatch/ #


32/46

Same sex marriage

=osted on uly #F$ !"## (y =hil(ert E. Varona G =osted in )i*il &aw$ )ommercial&aw$ =hili++ines 0 )ases$ =hili++ines 0 &aw

On !H une !"##$ the New ork legislature *oted to legali;e same0sex marriage.

ollowing suit$ on !F une$ the Cetro+olitan )ommunity )hurch of Cetro Baguio

hosted a mass same0sex marriage ceremony$ +receding the Jth Baguio &es(ian$

5ays$ Bisexuals and :ransgender =ride =arade. :he National Statistics O1ce

has announced$ howe*er$ that the Baguio marriages cele(rated on !F une in

Baguio )ity ha*e 2no legal (inding e>ect3 and cannot (e registered in the NSO.

=re*iously$ in !""F$ Senator 'odolfo Bia;on and his son$ 'e+resentati*e 'o;ano

Bia;on$ led (ills to amend the =hili++ine amily )ode to ex+licitly +ro*ide that a

2marriage3 must take +lace (etween anatural-born male and a natural-born female. Senator Ciriam Kefensor Santiago also led a (ill which seeks to

ex+ressly (ar local recognition of same0sex marriages cele(rated a(road.

,s is the case in se*eral other 4urisdictions$ the =hili++ine legal framework does

not recogni;e marriages (etween +ersons of the same gender. :he amily )ode

denes marriage as a 2s+ecial contract of +ermanent union (etween a man and

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/same-sex-marriage/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/pevlexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/pevlexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/civil-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/civil-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/commercial-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/commercial-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifierhttp://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=699910&publicationSubCategoryId=63http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=699910&publicationSubCategoryId=63http://www.gmanews.tv/story/225152/nation/nso-same-sex-marriages-in-baguio-city-not-in-the-registryhttps://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/same-sex-marriage/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/pevlexoterica/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/civil-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/commercial-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/commercial-law/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifierhttp://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=699910&publicationSubCategoryId=63http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=699910&publicationSubCategoryId=63http://www.gmanews.tv/story/225152/nation/nso-same-sex-marriages-in-baguio-city-not-in-the-registry


33/46

a woman entered into in accordance with law for the esta(lishment of con4ugal

and family life.3 6Em+hasis su++lied.9 In Silverio vs. Repu"lic 65.'. No. #LHFM$

#M Octo(er !""L9$ a man who had undergone sex reassignment surgery 6i.e.$ a

2male0to0female +ost0o+erati*e transsexual$3 as descri(ed (y the Su+reme

)ourt9 sought to change his name and gender in his (irth certicate to reect

what 6s9he (elie*ed was his6her9 true sexual identity. :hrough ustice 'enato)orona$ the Su+reme )ourt denied the +etition$ and held?

%nder the )i*il 'egister &aw$ a (irth certicate is a historical record of the facts

as they existed at the time of (irth. :hus$ the sex of a +erson is determined at

(irth$ *isually done (y the (irth attendant 6the +hysician or midwife9 (y

examining the genitals of the infant. )onsidering thatthere is no law legally

recogni;ing sex reassignment$ the determination of a +erson


34/46

man and a woman. One of its essential reuisites is the legal ca+acity of the

contracting +arties who must (e a male and a female. :o grant the changes

sought (y +etitioner will su(stantially recongure and greatly alter the laws on

marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man

who has undergone sex reassignment 6a male0to0female +ost0o+erati*e

transsexual9. Second$ there are *arious laws which a++ly +articularly to womensuch as the +ro*isions of the &a(or )ode on em+loyment of women$ certain

felonies under the 'e*ised =enal )ode and the +resum+tion of sur*i*orshi+ in

case of calamities under 'ule #Q# of the 'ules of )ourt$ among others. :hese

laws underscore the +u(lic +olicy in relation to women which could (e

su(stantially a>ected if +etitionerects of sex

reassignment$3 and recogni;ed that 2there are +eo+le whose +references andorientation do not t neatly into the commonly recogni;ed +arameters of social

con*ention and that$ at least for them$ life is indeed an ordeal. @owe*er$ the

remedies +etitioner seeks in*ol*e uestions of +u(lic +olicy to (e addressed

solely (y the legislature$ not (y the courts.3


35/46

,ny mo*e to so amend the =hili++ine legal framework will +ro*oke wides+read

discussion and$ in all likelihood$ strong o++osition from the more conser*ati*e

sectors of society$ such as the 'oman )atholic )hurch. Only time will tell if the

=hili++ine )ongress will follow in the footste+s of other 4urisdictions 6e.g.$ New

ork and the %nited ingdom9 and enact legislation allowing same0sex

marriages. %ntil then$ unions (etween +ersons of the same gender will continueto (e denied recognition under =hili++ine law.

gainst Same Sex 0arriage

Against Same Sex Marriage - The Six Point Case

%ach of these six oints against same sex marriage 'ill be exlained in detail in the

follo'ing articles. 3lic on each lin for more exlanation.

:. Natural marriage is the foundation of a civili&ed societ!.

+.


36/46

Against Same Sex Marriage - The Executive Summary

Same-sex marriage is a ver! emotional issue for man! eole.


37/46

>. Since the la' is a great teacher$ government-baced same-sex marriage or civil

unions 'ould ut societ!As stam of aroval on same-sex relationshis and

behavior. This endorsement 'ould fundamentall! change the institution of marriage

to our detriment. It 'ould do the follo'ing4

o %(uate same-sex marriage 'ith natural marriage$ thereb! teaching citi&ens

the sociall! disastrous ideas that natural marriage is no better than an! other

relationshi and that marriage is not a rere(uisite for children.

o 1isconnect marriage from childbearing b! maing marriage ,ust about

couling. This 'ill result in soaring cohabitation and illegitimac! and ainful

costs to children and societ!.

o %ncourage more homosexual behavior$ 'hich is medicall! destructive to

those 'ho engage in it and financiall! burdensome to the ublic in general.

o 2esult in higher medical$ health insurance$ and tax costs to the general

ublic.

o Provide legal grounds to restrict or rohibit religious freedom and free

seech.

*. 0uch of this is alread! haening in countries that have government-baced same-

sex marriage. Natural marriage is 'eaest and illegitimac! strongest 'here same-

sex marriage is legal.

". 0ost homosexuals are not interested in marriagearoximatel! J* ercent of

homosexuals in countries 'ith same-sex marriage do not get married. The! 'ant

government-baced same-sex marriage because it 'ould validate and normali&e

homosexualit! throughout societ!.


38/46

J. ll common ob,ectionsincluding those that cite DdiscriminationE or De(ual rightsE

are fallacious.

) 4easons (hy #omose%ual />arriage0 is #armful and

By TFP Student Action

652 Comments

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always een a

co!enant etween a man and a woman which is y its nature ordered toward the

"rocreation and education o# children and the unity and welleing o# the s"ouses.

The "romoters o# same$se% &marriage' "ro"ose something entirely di##erent. They "ro"ose

the union etween two men or two women. This denies the sel#$e!ident iological(

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html#disqus_threadhttp://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html#disqus_thread


39/46

"hysiological( and "sychological di##erences etween men and women which #ind their

com"lementarity in marriage. )t also denies the s"eci#ic "rimary "ur"ose o# marriage* the

"er"etuation o# the human race and the raising o# children.

Two entirely di##erent things cannot e considered the same thing.

Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here #or details.

Click "like" for TR! marriage

#. It $iolates Natural %a&

Marriage is not +ust any relationshi" etween human eings. )t is a relationshi" rooted in

human nature and thus go!erned y natural law.

,atural law-s most elementary "rece"t is that &good is to e done and "ursued( and e!il is

to e a!oided.' By his natural reason( man can "ercei!e what is morally good or ad #or

him. Thus( he can know the end or "ur"ose o# each o# his acts and how it is morally wrong

to trans#orm the means that hel" him accom"lish an act into the act-s "ur"ose.

Any situation which institutionalies the circum!ention o# the "ur"ose o# the se%ual act

!iolates natural law and the o+ecti!e norm o# morality.

Being rooted in human nature( natural law is uni!ersal and immutale. )t a""lies to the

entire human race( e/ually. )t commands and #orids consistently( e!erywhere and always.

Saint Paul taught in the 0"istle to the 1omans that the natural law is inscried on the heart

o# e!ery man. 1om. 2*34$35

'. It (l&a)s *enies a Child !ither a +ather or a Mother

)t is in the child-s est interests that he e raised under the in#luence o# his natural #ather

and mother. This rule is con#irmed y the e!ident di##iculties #aced y the many children who

are or"hans or are raised y a single "arent( a relati!e( or a #oster "arent.

The un#ortunate situation o# these children will e the norm #or all children o# a same$se%

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/become-a-guardian-of-truth-its-the-best-way-to-help-tfp-student-action.htmlhttp://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/become-a-guardian-of-truth-its-the-best-way-to-help-tfp-student-action.html


40/46

&marriage.' A child o# a same$se% &marriage' will always e de"ri!ed o# either his natural

mother or #ather. e will necessarily e raised y one "arty who has no lood relationshi"

with him. e will always e de"ri!ed o# either a mother or a #ather role model.

Same$se% &marriage' ignores a child-s est interests.

,. It $alidates and Promotes the omoseual %ifest)le

)n the name o# the amily(' same$se% &marriage' ser!es to !alidate not only such unions

ut the whole homose%ual li#estyle in all its ise%ual and transgender !ariants.

Ci!il laws are structuring "rinci"les o# man7s li#e in society. As such( they "lay a !ery

im"ortant and sometimes decisi!e role in in#luencing "atterns o# thought and eha!ior. They

e%ternally sha"e the li#e o# society( ut also "ro#oundly modi#y e!eryone-s "erce"tion ande!aluation o# #orms o# eha!ior.

8egal recognition o# same$se% &marriage' would necessarily oscure certain asic moral

!alues( de!alue traditional marriage( and weaken "ulic morality.

/. It Turns a Moral 0rong into a Ciil Right

omose%ual acti!ists argue that same$se% &marriage' is a ci!il rights issue similar to the

struggle #or racial e/uality in the 396:s.

This is #alse.

First o# all( se%ual eha!ior and race are essentially di##erent realities. A man and a woman

wanting to marry may e di##erent in their characteristics* one may e lack( the other

white; one rich( the other "oor; or one tall( the other short. ,one o# these di##erences are

insurmountale ostacles to marriage. The two indi!iduals are still man and woman( and

thus the re/uirements o# nature are res"ected.

Same$se% &marriage' o""oses nature. Two indi!iduals o# the same se%( regardless o# their

race( wealth( stature( erudition or #ame( will ne!er e ale to marry ecause o# an

insurmountale iological im"ossiility.

Secondly( inherited and unchangeale racial traits cannot e com"ared with non$genetic and

changeale eha!ior. There is sim"ly no analogy etween the interracial marriage o# a man


41/46

and a woman and the &marriage' etween two indi!iduals o# the same se%.

2. It *oes Not Create a +amil) 3ut a Naturall) 4terile nion

Traditional marriage is usually so #ecund that those who would #rustrate its end must do!iolence to nature to "re!ent the irth o# children y using contrace"tion. )t naturally tends

to create #amilies.


42/46

)n e!ery situation where marriage a##ects society( the State will e%"ect Christians and all

"eo"le o# good will to etray their consciences y condoning( through silence or act( an

attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting !dge of the 4eual Reolution

)n the 396:s( society was "ressured to acce"t all kinds o# immoral se%ual relationshi"s

etween men and women. Today we are seeing a new se%ual re!olution where society is

eing asked to acce"t sodomy and same$se% &marriage.'

)# homose%ual &marriage' is uni!ersally acce"ted as the "resent ste" in se%ual reedom('

what logical arguments can e used to sto" the ne%t ste"s o# incest( "edo"hilia( estiality(

and other #orms o# unnatural eha!ior> )ndeed( radical elements o# certain &a!ant garde'

sucultures are already ad!ocating such aerrations.

The railroading o# same$se% &marriage' on the American "eo"le makes increasingly clear

what homose%ual acti!ist Paul ?arnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press*

@The gay mo!ement( whether we acknowledge it or not( is not a ci!il rights mo!ement( not

e!en a se%ual lieration mo!ement( ut a moral re!olution aimed at changing "eo"le7s !iew

o# homose%uality.@

1:. It ;ffends God

This is the most im"ortant reason. hene!er one !iolates the natural moral order

estalished y od( one sins and o##ends od. Same$se% &marriage' does +ust this.

Accordingly( anyone who "ro#esses to lo!e od must e o""osed to it.

Marriage is not the creature o# any State. 1ather( it was estalished y od in Paradise #or

our #irst "arents( Adam and 0!e. As we read in the Book o# enesis* &od created man in

is image; in the i!ine image he created him; male and #emale e created them. od

lessed them( saying* DBe #ertile and multi"ly; #ill the earth and sudue it.-' en. 3*2E$29

The same was taught y


43/46

&The 8ord rained down sul"hurous #ire u"on Sodom and omorrah. e o!erthrew those

cities and the whole Plain( together with the inhaitants o# the cities and the "roduce o# the

soil.' en. 39*24$25

4pecial Re


44/46

#or "ride and try to im"ose their li#estyle on society as a whole( in #lagrant o""osition to

traditional Christian morality and natural law. owe!er( we "ray #or these too.

e "ray also #or the +udges( legislators and go!ernment o##icials who in one way or another

take ste"s that #a!or homose%uality and same$se% &marriage.' e do not +udge theirintentions( interior dis"ositions( or "ersonal moti!ations.

e re+ect and condemn any !iolence. e sim"ly e%ercise our lierty as children o# od

1om. E*23 and our constitutional rights to #ree s"eech and the candid( una"ologetic and

unashamed "ulic dis"lay o# our Catholic #aith. e o""ose arguments with arguments. To

the arguments in #a!or o# homose%uality and same$se% &marriage' we res"ond with

arguments ased on right reason( natural law and i!ine 1e!elation.

Same0Sex Carriage Not et &egally 'ecogni;ed in the =hili++ines

:he state of New ork recently +assed a law that legali;es same0sex marriages. :hat

means gay and les(ian cou+les could marry$ with legal +rotection ordinarily grantedto male0female cou+les. N is the latest %S state that allows same0sex marriage.

,lso recently$ we


45/46

another. :hey may ha*e done it to rekindle the de(ate. :hey may ha*e other

reasons$ (ut it could NO: include seeking legal +rotection and (enets that ow

from marriage.

=hili++ine laws do not recogni;e and +rotect same0sex marriage. It doesn


46/46

,nother reader which goes (y the name syelapin states that 2%;ith our history and

culture as a "acdrop1 I; highly dou"t %e

Documents

Debate Samesex