Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES Preliminary Introduction:

Same-sex marriage is slowly gaining a foothold across the world. In five countriesthe Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africalesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people can marry, although only in Canada is marriage completely equal for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. (The other nations impose special residency requirements on homosexual couples.) Civil unions, registered partnerships, and domestic partnerships are available with varying rights and responsibilities in nineteen other countries, as well as regions of Australia and of three South American countries.

Main Introduction:
Also known as gay marriage or equal marriage it is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identityIn the 20th and 21st centuries various types of same-sex unions have come to be legalized. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in eight European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden; Luxembourg, Finland, France and the United Kingdom are currently in the process of legalization. Politicians in the United Kingdom have expressed their intention to promote legislation to allow same-sex marriage. Other types of recognition for same-sex unions are as of 2012 legal in the following European countries: Andorra, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Statement of Issues:
Three reasons why other person wants to legal the same sex marriage: First is, they have said all have a sin nature, with weaknesses to sin in particular ways and some people express their sin nature is one way, other people express theirs in other ways. Homosexuality is just one way in a fair and balanced way. Secondly, Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice and the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry. Thirdly, ending discrimination enhances the human spirit and makes all our lives better.

Brief of the Argument:


The argument of same-sex marriage is an important one. The question of legalization of same sex marriages is an issue in many of our states today. I would like to argue that same-sex marriages do not infringe on any civil rights, but it is also immoral. We, as Christians, should not be afraid to stand up and use our Constitutional rights to speak against same-sex marriages. The debate over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized has focused on the infringement of civil rights. State recognition of marriages is not a common right. States control marriages in many ways, not just by denying same sex gender the right to marry. Approximately half of all states deny first cousins from marrying and all deny marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the couple is sterile. In all fifty two states,

it is illegal to try to marry more than one person. Some states may even deny a person who is suffering from venereal diseases the right to marriage. Gays and lesbians are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. We, as Christians, should find that same-sex marriages are unacceptable. However, we must look at this issue from the outlook of a homosexual, so we may understand both sides of the controversies that are in our world today. It is clear that not all people believe in the Bible, and we do have the freedom of religion here in the United States. Though we should understand and sympathize with the fact that the homosexual community simply desires the normal daily lifestyle and benefits of the family structure. However, we cannot uphold this opinion when we claim Christianity. As Christians, we must believe the Bible and what it states. In Romans, The Bible speaks strongly against great wickedness. The scriptures in Romans included sexual perversions, such as homosexuality, in the long list of wickedness. Most Jews, after all, support gay marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, their own or anyone elses. And yet some Jews, including some of the most vocal ones, also identify their secular liberal values with the teachings of Judaism itself, or at least with their interpretation of those teachings.This is especially so with respect to the non-Orthodoxthat is, the Reform and Conservativebranches of the Jewish religious world, which together, as suggested earlier, not only constitute the largest body of religiously affiliated Jews but also have gone out of their way to accommodate gay Jewish couples desirous of being married under their auspices. The only outlier in the constellation is the Orthodox movement, numerically the smallest of the three; although it, too, wrestles with the issues presented by gay rights (and gay rabbis), most of its authorities continue to insist that neither homosexual practices nor gay marriage can be reconciled with Jewish religious law as enunciated in Scripture and elaborated in the rabbinic legal tradition (halakhah).On what, then, do the spokesmen for the non-Orthodox movements base their own favorable disposition toward gay marriage as a religiously sanctioned institution, and how did they overcome the seemingly immovable obstacles presented to it in Jewish sources?It might seem that the obvious place to start is the most notorious place of all, namely, the biblical condemnation of homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. But there is reason not to start there: together with the other, surrounding prohibitions of incest and adultery in chapter 18 of Leviticus, this verse became among the least particularistic of biblical injunctions, having been enthusiastically embraced by Christianity and Islam and amplified and intensified by them beyond its salience among the other Levitical prohibitions dictated by God to Moses.I will come back to those prohibitions, and to the role they play in the distinctively Jewish conception of marriage. For the time being, though, it is enough to acknowledge that Leviticus 18:22 did indeed figure in early deliberations by the non-Orthodox branches over their stance toward homosexuality itself. They dealt with the issue by setting to one side the evidently non-negotiable barrier presented by specific homosexual practicesthe plain-sense object, as they saw it, of the biblical commandand focusing instead on the very modern question of a homosexual identity. And this was an easy problem to surmount, because the existence of such a thing as a homosexual identity had long been accepted by the Jewish public, and everyone, including many if not most of the Orthodox, wanted to recognize and to welcome Jews who were gay as fellow Jews.When it came to the next big step, gay marriage, the task for non-Orthodox rabbis, though difficult, became mainly technical. In the mid-1990s, a committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), the official rabbinical body of the Reform denomination, hesitated over the blazingly clear non-compatibility of gay relationships of any kind with Jewish marriage as a legal categorykiddushin

sanctioned by Jewish religious tradition. A few years later, however, while still split on the applicability of the term marriage, the movement resolved to give its individual rabbis the power to decide whether and how to conduct same-sex unions of gay Jews. It had satisfied itself that such unions could serve as the foundation of stable Jewish families (the sanction, as it were, of enlightened social science), and this finding, together with the Reform movements long history of support for civil and equal rights for gay and lesbians (the sanction, as it were, of liberalism), was enough. By 2004, the CCAR would issue a redacted Kiddushin [sic] Service for Same Gender Couples. Adding a therapeutic touch, David Ellenson, the head of the Reform rabbinical seminary, would put the case summarily: the Jewish obligation to champion an ethic of compassion and empathy . . . can be said to trump a single statement in Leviticus 18:22.For the Conservative movementwhich, unlike Reform, accepts the authority ofhalakhah (an acceptance duly tempered by its ready embrace of change)the engineering feat proved trickier. Accordingly, the process took longer. As a committee of the movements Rabbinical Assembly finally reported in 2012, its members had long been alerted to an urgent deficit of dignity experienced by same-sex Jewish couples who were unable to marry under Conservative auspices. In particular, the rabbis pastoral concern had been piqued by studies showing that LGBT teenagers committed suicide at a distressingly higher rate than teenagers in general.Although there is no evidence that the availability of gay marriage would have alleviated this situation for teenagers, or for Jewish teenagers in particular, the degree of emotional suffering suggested by the statistics impelled the rabbis to find within the halakhic literature a means of remediation. Like their Reform counterparts, but in their own preferred terms of discourse, they settled on an oft-repeated and, in truth, oft-debatedtalmudic dictum to the effect that the demand of human dignity . . . supersedes a negative principle of Torah.On the grounds of this halakhic principle, the Conservative rabbis, while declining to rule one way or another on the Scriptural prohibition of homoerotic conduct in Leviticus 18:22, made the choice to suspend rabbinic-level prohibitions (their emphasis) of same-sex relationships of any kind and create a mechanism that would enable homosexual Jewish couples to experience intimacy and create families recognized by the Jewish community. In due course, they also produced an approved wedding ceremony for same-sex couples, released in two separate versions with language specific to male and female pairings, and they pledged themselves to celebrate the new marriages formed by these rituals with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages.Looking upon their work, the rabbis found it very good: These two wedding ceremonies, like the kiddushin ceremony developed in Jewish tradition for heterosexual couples, emphasize values such as faithfulness, compassion, and financial responsibility. They employ traditional symbols of love and marriage, speak to the couples commitment to living a life infused with study and devotion, and ask for Gods blessing upon their union. In all of these ways these ceremonies communicate that the family established by the couple has the potential to become a bayit neeman bYisrael, a faithful household in Israel. The Conservative ceremoniesgenerous, linguistically ingenious, and based to the authors satisfaction on Jewish legal reasoningshare one peculiarity that the rabbis acknowledge and another, greater one that they do not. The first is their conscious bypassing of the key components of the kiddushin ceremony developed in Jewish tradition: the same components that proved temporarily irksome to their Reform colleagues and that make a marriage explicitly and unmistakably Jewish. The second is their non-acknowledgement of everything that makes Jewish marriage itself a sine qua non for the existence of Judaism and of the Jewish people.

Conclusion:
The same sex marriage should be legalized. It is human civil rights, it is encourage families value and lead to a lot of financial profits to sate and local. Two people of the same sex who love each other should allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. All lovers should be granted the final gift of marriage, because marriage is an inalienable right of humans. Joe Solmonese confirm that one day in the near future, people will look back on todays same-sex couples and families and ask with raised eyebrows, Why wouldnt two people, who have spent their lives committed to one another, be granted the same human rights that most others take for granted?. Marriage can provide families with true equality, so please stand for the same sex marriages as marriage equality.