MARCH 19, 2014

MEMBERS:
ZUNIEGA
PANO
BASAMOT
ANGGOY
PUERTAS
MELANES
GRECIA
GALEA
VARGAS

GROUP 4 (bsit2a)
DEBATE
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
NEGATIVE SIDE
SPEECH : SPEAKER #1
Good day to all of you,
as we continue to our discussion regarding to the issue of Same Sex Marriage I would like to emphasize to all of you that marriage is define as
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their
children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and
sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural
universal.
This definition is based on the Wikipedia while base on the Word of God marriage is define as in the Gospel of Matthew 19:5-6 and we read
v5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
v6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

My dear listeners our discussion for this issue is NOT a nonsense or a joke. Why did I say this? Its because if we consider this just like a joke if possible we make
people pool and the worst is, it will lead to them destruction to their souls by the cause of wrong believes what speakers delivered to them.
So! let us be serious.
Now, maybe the listeners may ask. How can I know if the speaker speak of the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the most concern is the beneficial of the
listeners and NOT by him/herself?
Let us put this way....
I have known three people wherein beside the street debating the exact measures of the height of the street post or street light. A street guy said; that post, its
height is about 500 feet , then the old man said; that post is about 1000 feet in height, but an engineer said; No! That is only 75 feet in height.
Question! Who of them speak the truth?
Easily, get a standard of measurement wherein it is your medium to know what is really the measure of the height of the post. Then they get a tape measure then
they measure the height of the post, now that they derived to the exact measure.
We can now judge them if who of them speak the truth. It is important that in every what we prove has a basis.

One more example in the case of Ms. Napoles the court has no power to put her in the jail if there is no real witnesses and no sufficient enough evidences if Ms.
Napoles is really guilty to all the accuses to her.

Likewise in our discussion now you can make your own categorical standard of measurement such as REAL WITNESSES, REAL EVIDENCES, STANDARD OF BASIS
wherein is you basis to know if who of all the speakers speak the whole truth and your basis of judging.
Ladies and gentlemen in this debate we proudly introduce to all of you our standard of basis is the Word of God written in the Bible also our witness to whom what
it is spoken became the evidence.
Now a major question is.
Is God permitted SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Who are permitted by God to be married?
Again our basis in the Gospel of Matthew 19:5-6 and we read;
v5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
v6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
Let us go deeper analysis in this verse the word wife in v5 in interlinear Hebrew language wherein the Bible is originally written,
It says that
G1135

gune
goo-nay'
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: - wife, woman.
We clearly heard that the word wife is referred as a woman.

Now in the question of Who are permitted by God to be married? Base on the will of God it is a man and a woman hath joined together wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh.

Let us be firm and biblical as what Apostle Pablo said in 1cor. 4:6 and we read;
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for
one against another.

With these thank you TO GOD BE THE GLORY.

OTHER REFERENCE;
10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed
By TFP Student Action

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation
and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex marriage propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological,
physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the
perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Click "like" for TRUE marriage!

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural laws most elementary precept is that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad
for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and
always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many
children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex marriage. A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of either his
natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex marriage ignores a childs best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the family, same-sex marriage serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They
externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the
other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and
woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex marriage opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an
insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of
a man and a woman and the marriage between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally
tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile. If the spouses want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The
natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable,
affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of childrenall fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and
strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by
nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public
schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new morality, businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them
for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an
attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is
being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex marriage.

If homosexual marriage is universally accepted as the present step in sexual freedom, what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia,
bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain avant garde subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex marriage on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing
people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex marriage does just this.
Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: God created
man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Gen.
1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother;
and shall cleave to his wife. (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew
those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil. (Gen. 19:24-25)

Other resources:
Why 'Gay Marriage' is Wrong: Answering Top 10 Objections
Is Sodomy No Longer a Sin?
Are We Still One Nation Under God?
Equality's Next Victims: Transgendering Our Children
Video: Attached by "Tolerance"
12 quotes: Why "marriage" equality will literally destroy natural marriage
 To receive free pro-family updates, subscribe to our newsletter now.

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing
individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian
civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall
into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a
reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We do not judge their
intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and
unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex marriage we respond with
arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

10 Really Bad Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Debunking the American Family Association's NoGayMarriage.com Platform

By Tom Head

The American Family Association, a right-wing advocacy group, has published a list of ten arguments against same-sex marriage. Ostensibly a summary of James
Dobson's Marriage Under Fire, the arguments make a very loose case against same-sex marriage based almost entirely on slippery slopes and out-of-context quotations from the
Good Book.

The inclination of many of my readers will be to get angry at the AFA. Please don't. They're actually doing the world a favor by putting these frequently whispered but seldom
spoken arguments out in plain view, where they can be unpacked and dismantled.

Argument #1: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.
Point by point:
The Scandinavian studies to which the article presumably refers are the work of right-wing author Stanley Kurtz, who attempted to prove that same-sex marriage
decreased the rate of heterosexual marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. This work has been discredited; see the last paragraph on this page for a summary explaining
why.
The often-quoted reference from Romans 1:29-32 omits the following verse, Romans 2:1, which reads "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge
others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."
No credible study has ever found that children are negatively impacted by being raised in a lesbian or gay household.

Argument #2: That if same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy will follow.

 Even if this concern had a rational basis, a simpler solution to this problem would be to propose a constitutional amendment banning polygamy--which would be easily
ratified--rather than fooling around with an anti-gay constitutional amendment that only one-third of Americans support.

Argument #3: That same-sex marriage would make heterosexual divorces too easy.

No, seriously. The article actually describes this as an "even greater objective of the homosexual movement" than the legalization of same-sex marriage proper. The
article makes no real attempt to explain why this would happen, or how this would happen, but presumably one is expected to accept the statement at face value
without giving any real thought to it.

Argument #4: That same-sex marriage would require schools to teach tolerance.

People who support same-sex marriage also tend to support tolerance education in public schools, but the former isn't essential to the latter. Just ask Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who vetoed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and signed a bill enacting a gay-friendly public school tolerance curriculum in the same month.

Argument #5: That same-sex married couples would be able to adopt.

Again, this does not require same-sex marriage. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon all specifically permit joint same-sex
adoption, and most other states do not specifically prohibit it.

Argument #6: That foster parents would be required to pass sensitivity training.

I'm not clear on what possible relationship this would have with same-sex marriage. Again, some states may require such training and some states may not, but the
presence or absence of legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the issue.

Argument #7: That Social Security can't afford to pay for same-sex couples.

In argument #1, the AFA article criticized the low marriage rate. But in order for Social Security to be an issue, lesbian and gay Americans would have to remain single
altogether rather than becoming heterosexual. The Religious Right's vision of millions of lesbians and gay Americans converting to heterosexuality and marrying
members of the opposite sex would have to be written off entirely in order to produce any economic benefit based on denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

And any such benefit would be small-scale anyway. If 4% of the U.S. population identifies as lesbian or gay and half of lesbians and gay men get married, then that's
only a 2% increase in the national marriage rate. That won't make or break Social Security.

Argument #8: That legal U.S. same-sex marriage would encourage its spread.

This is the only argument on the list that doesn't strain credulity. Legal same-sex marriage in the United States probably would encourage other nations to also legalize
same-sex marriage. But Canada was really ahead of the curve on this one, and will probably be given most of the credit by historians.
 Argument #9: That same-sex marriage would make evangelism more difficult.

And just what sort of evangelism are we talking about here, exactly?

In any event, I find it remarkable that any contemporary Christian would see a social policy they don't like as an obstacle to evangelism. A little less than two millennia
ago, Christians were actually being executed by the Roman Empire, and surviving texts do not indicate that they saw this as an impediment to evangelism. Why would a
change in marriage law, one that does not even directly impact heterosexual couples, somehow destroy evangelism when several generations of Roman emperors could
not?

Argument #10: That same-sex marriage would bring about divine retribution.

Again, a little perspective is in order. More than 3,000 children die every day of malaria; during the 1990s, an estimated 100 million children died of starvation; AIDS is
sweeping the Global South; and the issue that will bring profound divine retribution is a change in marriage law?

I also have to question any theology that portrays God as some sort of violent, capricious bogeyman who must be supplicated, like the malevolent spirits of animist
traditions, by sacrifices and incantations. The first generation of Christians welcomed the idea of divine intervention with the word "maranatha": "Come, Lord Jesus."
There is no trace of that message, so central to the earliest Christian teachings, in this AFA article.

History and Debate of Gay Marriage

Same-sex marriage is defined as a union between two people who are of the same gender or biological sex. Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have made this type of union legal. Whether or not to recognize
such marriages remains a source of debate as far as civil rights, political and social issues go.

Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a relationship of
one or more men with one or more women that is recognized by law and involves certain legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are married also carry a legal responsibility for children that they produce
together. Modern definitions of the word have much more variation. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many conservative publications
have not yet changed their definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage between two people of the same gender. Associated Press uses the term "gay
marriage" and warns that this can refer to marriage of both gay men and lesbian couples.

Gay Marriage Debate Controversy

It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage that this topic carries with it a large amount of controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage, regardless of
sexual orientation. Those who are opposed often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the rearing of children as the main reasons for their opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not a simple one. It
involves many legislative, cultural, religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that
marriage is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those of a particular sexual orientation.

Gay Marriage and Religion

Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate often involve religious factors. Some religious associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex marriage tend
to believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others. Those who are against it argue that same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will and subvert the goal
of human sexuality, which is to produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in Sodom as a condemnation of
homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family. Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a
homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the other hand, scientific studies have found that children raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable of providing heterosexual parenting to their own
children later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one because of the many social and legal factors involved. Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage, political and social groups everywhere are working hard to form
their own opinions and arguments.
 Debating Same-Sex Marriage (Point/Counterpoint (Oxford Paperback)) Paperback

by John Corvino
Polls and election results show Americans sharply divided on same-sex marriage, and the controversy is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Debating Same-Sex Marriage provides an indispensable
roadmap to the ongoing debate. Taking a "point/counterpoint" approach, John Corvino (a philosopher and prominent gay advocate) and Maggie Gallagher (a nationally syndicated columnist and co-
founder of the National Organization for Marriage) explore fundamental questions: What is marriage for? Is sexual difference essential to it? Why does the government sanction it? What are the
implications of same-sex marriage for children's welfare, for religious freedom, and for our understanding of marriage itself? While the authors disagree on many points, they share the following conviction:
Because marriage is a vital public institution, this issue deserves a comprehensive, rigorous, thoughtful debate.

Editorial Reviews

Review
"Debating Same-Sex Marriage is an important book that lays bare the philosophical arguments for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage."
--Andre Archie, The American Conservative

"Why do the advocates of same-sex marriage want what they want? And why do defenders of traditional marriage, as uniting men with women to form families, resist such a change? One cannot do better
for achieving clarity on such questions than by reading Debating Same-Sex Marriage, co-authored by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher. Corvino, who teaches philosophy at Wayne State University in
Michigan, and Gallagher, a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, have achieved something of real value in this book, confronting one another with (in general) an admirable degree of
civility. Given the space to build arguments for their own views, and to respond to each other at length, Corvino and Gallagher provide what are probably the best and the most complete arguments on
either side of this momentous debate." --Matthew J. Franck, Public Discourse

"The debate over whether to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages is among the most sensitive, difficult, and important in American public life. . . . John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher know this,
which is why their arguments on marriage are so measured, reasonable, and persuasive -- despite their own profound disagreement. . . . The total effect is to give readers a sense of the strengths and
weaknesses of the arguments, without the usual spike in blood pressure."--Ryan T. Anderson, National Review

"This is a valuable addition to the debate." --Publishers Weekly

"Philosopher John Corvino and National Organization for Marriage co-founder Maggie Gallagher spar spiritedly but respectfully on such topics as the purpose of marriage, the rationale for state
recognition, the interests of children, and the consequences for religious freedom." --Matt Reynolds, Christianity Today

"Readers have two good advocates to examine what's at stake and how it might be spun. How will it turn out? Trusting in God, but using the last words in the book: 'We shall see.'" --National Catholic
Register

"Debating Same-Sex Marriage's format is quite interesting -- and massively effective...It's like witnessing a live debate between these two lively characters...I highly recommend this to all -- if only for a
manual on how to respectfully debate a member of the opposing viewpoint. Well done!" --Elizabeth Raymond, San Francisco Book Review

"With debate intensifying over same-sex marriage, this valuable exchange of views could not be more timely. Maggie Gallagher and John Corvino set forth their opposing positions clearly, eloquently, and
with admirable lack of rancor."--Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

"Maggie Gallagher is a hero to many of us who care about life, marriage and religious liberty. She is lucid, honest, compassionate, fearless and above all relentlessly reasonable in making the case for
marriage as the union of husband and wife. Read this book to learn more about marriage, and about the views of millions of Americans who understand this is one fight we cannot duck."--Senator Rick
Santorum

"John Corvino does a masterful job laying out the positive moral good in allowing same-sex couples to marry and exposing the weaknesses in arguments against such equality. With a mix of sharp
philosophical analysis and wry humorous stories, Corvino makes clear why marriage need not be exclusively heterosexual in order to be good for couples, families and society. His remarkable
collaboration with Maggie Gallagher to 'achieve disagreement' -- to uncover where they differ and why on allowing same-sex couples to marry -- helps move the conversation forward for all of us."--Chai
Feldblum, Georgetown Law professor and founder of moralvaluesproject.com

"Maggie Gallagher is one of the most eloquent and influential voices for marriage in America today. Her arguments are carefully reasoned and often deeply moving. They have influenced politicians,
judges, religious leaders, scholars, and a vast number of ordinary citizens who, at this time of uncertainty about the meaning and importance of marriage, are trying to decide what to think. Although her
public witness for marriage has sometimes subjected her to venomous abuse, she does not respond in kind. Rather, she is exemplary in her willingness to engage those who see the marriage question
differently with civility and grace."--Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
"John Corvino deserves a Gay Medal of Honor for the heroic work he has done in this book. John manages to keep his cool and offer thoughtful, engaging responses in the face of bad and sometimes
infuriatingly insulting arguments. John is like your favorite college professor: he offers insight so cheerfully -- and at times so humorously -- that you can almost forget that he's tearing your term paper
apart. In this case, the student is Maggie Gallagher and the 'term paper' is her flimsy, if passionately felt, rationale for denying gay and lesbian Americans their full civil equality. John makes an elegant,
forceful, civil, and inspired case for equal rights under the law. Everyone interested in the debate over marriage equality -- particularly anyone who wishes to be armed with solid pro-marriage-equality
arguments -- should buy and read this book."--Dan Savage, author of The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage and My Family, and founder of the It Gets Better Project

"Maggie Gallagher has been one of the staunchest advocates for traditional marriage in our lifetime, and she has now added what may well be the most cogent defense of that venerable institution yet
written. Combining her philosophical training with real world experience, Gallagher articulates quite powerfully the societal risk of transforming marriage from an institution rooted in the biological nature of
men and women and designed to foster the procreation and rearing of children, to one that is simply about adult relationships. A must read for everyone grappling with the policy debate currently
underway, but particularly for those judges who think the policy decision is theirs alone to make."--Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean,
Chapman University School

"The best part of this valuable point-counterpoint is John Corvino's patient, clear, and logical dismantling of every argument and insinuation made by the leading opponents of letting loving and committed
gay couples and their families share in something we all agree is good. Corvino convincingly shows that the couples, children, kin, and communities deserve the simple Golden Rule of fairness and the
civic respect that are part of America's promise of the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and justice for all, and that ending their exclusion from marriage would harm no one. No wonder a majority of Americans
-- including, notwithstanding Maggie Gallagher's arguments, 63% of American Catholics -- have opened their hearts and changed their minds to support the freedom to marry."--Evan Wolfson, President of
Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters

"Corvino grounds his argument in solid data, pointing out weaknesses in his opponent's correlative (rather than casual) data and circular logic.... This is a valuable addition to the debate."--Publishers
Weekly

"Though I have been critical of the arguments presented by Gallagher in this book, I actually think that the book in general is actually an excellent one. It lays out the arguments on both sides of this issue
clearly and concisely. Hence, Debating Same-Sex Marriage is an outstanding book not only for the general reader who wants to know more about this debate; it would also be perfect for a university
course examining this issue."--Robert Scott Stewart, Metapsychology Online Reviews

PAANO KAYA MAGIGING BAYANI?

CHARACTER(S) SCRIPT PLACE SCENARIO SHOT
1 ALL GATE ENTRANCE ENTERING SCHOOL FASADE UI
ALL CHARACTER(S)
2 LAHAT NA ESTUDYANTE MAGANDANG ARAW PO SIR. Silid aralan
3 GURO MAGANDANG ARAW DIN SA INYO KAUGNAY SA NALALAPIT SILID ARALAN PGBIBIGAY GAWAIN CHARACTERS)
NIYONG HULING PAGSUBOK SA SUBJECT NA ITO AY
MAGKAKAROON KAYO NG GAWAIN, GAGAWA KAYO NG
MOVIE KUNG SAAN ANG INYONG TEMA AY KUNG
PAPAANONG SI DR. JOSE RIZAL AY HINIRANG NA BAYANI
SA PAMAMAGITAN NG PAMAMARAAN NG KANIYANG
PAMUMUHAY, PAGGAWA AT PANININDIGAN SA BUHAY AY
ANG BAWAT TAO RIN NAMAN AY MAAARING HIRANGING
BAYANI. HINDI SINUSUKAT DITO ANG KALAGAYAN SA
BUHAY, KUNG MAHIRAP KA O MAYAMAN MAN. KAYA SA
NAPAG ARALAN NA NATIN NOONG NAKARAAN MERON SA
ATING PAGKATAO NA LIKAS NA KABUTIHAN . NGAYON
GAGAWIN NIYO YAN AS A GROUP AT ANG MAGIGING TEMA
NIYO SA GAGAWIN NIYONG MOVIE AY KUNG PAPAANO
KAYA MAGIGING BAYANI. SA ANOMANG ASPETO NG
BUHAY HUH.
KAYA GOOD LUCK SA INYO.
4 MGA ESTUDYANTE SILID ARALAN ESTUDYANTE SA CHARACTERS
ESTUDYANTE
NAGTATANUNGAN
5 BELL RINGING
6 GURO OKAY CLASS. THE CLASS DISMISS. SILID ARALAN CLASS DISMISAAL CHARACTERS
7 MGA ESTUDYANTE GOODBYE SIR SILID ARALAN CLASS DISMISSAL CHARACTERS
8 GURO GOODBYE SILID ARALAN
9 SPREADING
10 MELANES GUYS SISISMULAN NATIN ANG PAGGAWA NG MOVIE AT CORRIDOR SPREADING CHAR
BUKAS HUH
11 MGA ESTUDYANTE SURE. BYE GUYS. AT CORRIDOR SPREADING CHAR
12 SUNSET SUNRISE SUNSET & SUNRISE
13 VARGAS, GRECIA & GALEA SO GUYS! LET US START MAKING OUR MOVIE.:-) SOMEWHRE GOING TO SOMEWHRE CHAR
14 DISCUSSING CHAR
PC
PAPERS
15 MELANES GUYS PARA SA INYO PAANO NGA BA MAGIGING HERO? ? CHAR
16 BASAMOT PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR
To be a hero is like being good to others. Just like when ++
someone has a problem, you can approach him/her and give
some advice how can they overcome their problem. Some
people helping each other to demonstrate heroism or
undertake selfless acts by risking their own lives helping
people and strangers whom they have met from any imminent
parties. Despite it sometimes feeling like you couldnt do the
some, theres still ways that many of us could become a hero
or show heroic characteristics in real life that anyone can do.
17 PANO PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR
LAHAT TAYO AY BAYANI. ++
NGUNIT SA AKIN AY MASASABI KONG ISANG BAYANI ANG
AKING PAMILYA. BAKIT? DAHIL SILA ANG NAGBIBIGAY
INSPIRASYON SA AKIN UPANG IPAGPATULOY KO ANG
AKING BUHAY DITO SA MUNDONG IBABAW AT SILA RIN ANG
MAGIGING DAHILAN UPANG IPORSIGE KONG KAMTIN ANG
AKING MGA PANGARAP SA BUHAY.
NAG-AARAL AKO NG MABUTI DAHIL SA KANILA LALONG
LALO NA SA AKING MGA MAGULANG GUSTO KONG
SUKLIAN ANG KABUTIHANG DULOT NILA SA AKING BUHAY.
HINDI MAN SA MATERYAL NA BAGAY AY MAKITA MANLANG
NILA NA HINDI NA SASAYANG ANG KANILANG PAGHIHIRAP
UPANG MAPAG-ARAL LAMANG AKO. KAHIT NA MAHIRAP
LANG KAMI BASAT BUO ANG AMING PAMILYA AT MASAYA
AY SAPAT NA SA AKIN YUN. KAYA SA PARAANG ALAM KO
ANG PAGIGING BAYANI AY KAHIT NA SA LOOB NG TAHANAN
LANG MAKAKAGAWA PALA TAYO NG KABUTIHAN. ISANG
SANGKAP NG PAGIGING BAYANI. ISANG MABUTING BAGAY
NA ATING TANGKILIKIN ANG ATING SANGBAHAYAN KAYA
GANYAN ANG TUNAY NA BAYANI SA AKING BUHAY.
18 ANGGOY PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR
ANG PAGIGING BAYANI AY HINDI LANG PAGBUBUWIS NG ++
BUHAY. ANG PAGIGING BAYANI PARA SA AKIN AY MAGING
MABUTI SA AKING KAPUWA TAO. TUMULONG SA KAPUWA
SA MABUTING PARAAN AT MAY PAGMAMAHAL.
BEING A HERO TO MY FAMILY GUSTO KO MAPAKITA SA
KANILA NA NAGSISIKAP AKO NA MAKAPAGTAPOS SA PAG-
AARAL UPANG SA BALANG ARAW NA UMAASENSO AKO SA
PAMUMUHAY MAGIGING KASAMA KO SILA, MAIAHON KO
SILA SA KAHIRAPAN.
SA GANYANG PARAAN AY MAIPAPAKITA KO SA KANILA ANG
ISANG SANGKAP NG ISANG BAYANI.
BEING A HERO AY GAGAWIN KO ANG LAHAT PARA
MAPASAYA SILA AT MAIUKULAN NG PAGMAMAHAL.
KASIYAHAN SA AKIN ANG ISANAY SA AKING PAGKATAO
ANG ISANG SANGKAP NG ISANG BAYANI.
19 PUERTAS PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR
FOR ME, ANG PAGGIGING ISANG BAYANI AY HINDI LANG NA ++
NAGBUWIS KA NG BUHAY PARA SA BAYAN OH SA ANO PA
MANG MABUTING DAHILAN PARA TAWAGIN KANG ISANG
 BAYANI SA LIPUNAN. KAHIT SA SIMPLENG PAMUMUHAY
PWEDI KA NG HIRANGING BAYANI SA PAMAMAGITAN NG
PAGTULONG NA MAGING PROGRESIBO ANG ATING
LIPUNAN SA GANITO AY MAKAKATULONG TAYO HINDI LANG
SA LIPUNAN KUNDI PATI SA ATING KAPUWA MAMAMAYAN
AY ATIN DING MAHIKAYAT NA MAGING AKTIBO SA
ANUMANG MABUBUTING SINUSULONG NA PANUKALA NG
ATING GOBYERNO
LALO NA NG KAPUWA KO KABATAAN.
SA LAHAT NG ASPETO NG ATING BUHAY AY MAKAKAGAWA
TAYO NG KATANGIAN NG ISANG BAYANI.
20 GALEA PARA SA AKIN. ! CHAR
ANG HIRANGING BAYANI ANG ISANG TAO HINDI SIYA, SILA ++
O IKAW ANG MAKAKAPAGSABI. ANG TANGING
MAKAKAPAGSABI AY ANG BAKAS NG PAGGAWA NG ISANG
TAONG MAY MALINIS NA PUSO. ANG PAGGWA NG MABUTI
SA KAPUWA TAO NA WALANG HINIHINTAY NA KAPALIT.

21 GRECIA PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR

ANG PAGIGING BAYANI AY ISANG MATIYAGA, MATULUNGIN , ++
MAPAGMAHAL AT HIGIT SA LAHAT AY MAKA-DIOS. (jot down notes)

22 VARGAS PARA SA AKIN ! CHAR

WHEN WE SAY HERO WHAT COMES IN OUR MIND? THOSE ++
WHO DIED JUST TO SAVE LIFE OF OTHERS OR THOSE WHO
SACRIFICE THEIR LIFE FOR OUR COUNTRY. ALSO FOR KIDS,
WHAT COMES INTO THEIR MIND THOSE WHO HAVE SUPER
POWERS?

BUT FOR ME WE DONT NEED TO SACRIFICE OUR LIFE, WE

DONT HAVE TO HAVE A SUPER POWERS! WE CAN BE A
HERO IN SIMPLE WAY ON EVERYDAY OF OUR LIFE. I CAN BE
A HERO BY BEING OBEDIENT. MY DAD AND MY MON WORKS
HARD JUST FOR ME SO I THINK I CAN BE A HERO BY
FOLLOWING WHAT THEIR WANT ME TO DO AND STUDYING
HARD. I CAN ALSO BE A HERO BY GIVING A GOOD ________
TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT. I CAN BE A HERO IN THAT
SIMPLE WAY=)
23 MELANES AT PARA NAMAN SA AKIN ! CHAR
LAHAT SA ATIN AY PWEDING MAGING BAYANI. PERO SA ++
AKIN ANG PAGIGING ISANG BAYANI AY ANG MAKATULONG
AKO SA AKING PAMILYA. ANG PAMILYA KO ANG AKING
INUUKULAN NG LAKAS SA AKING PANG ARAW-ARAW PARA
IPAGPATULOY KO ANG AKING BUHAY. LALO NA SA AKING
MGA MAGULANG SILA ANG INSPIRASYON KO UPANG ANG
ISANG KATULAD KONG ABA AY MAGING ISANG BAYANI SA
PAMAMAGITAN NG PAGSUSUKLI KO NG NGITI AT GALAK SA
PISNGI NILA DAHIL SA PUYAT AT PAWIS NA GINUGOL PARA
LANG MAPAG ARAL AKO AT ARUGAIN. HINDI LANG SA
TAHANAN NATATAPOS ANG PAGGAWA NATIN NG
KABUTIHAN BAGKUS MAGING SA ATING KAPUWA TAOY
MAAARI TAYONG MAGING ISANG BAYANI SA PAMAMAGITAN
NG PAGGAWA SA PARAANG ALAM NA MABUTI.

24 END OF DISCUSSING
25 GRECIA YES TAPOS NA NATIN GUYS ! CHAR
(MOVIE MAKER)
PRESS ENTER
26 ALL YES..:-) TO JUMP CHAR
27 AT SCHOOL TO PASS THE MOVIE
28 ALL AT WALKING CHAR
SHOE
29 ALL THEN CORRIDOR WALIKING CHAR.
BACK
30 ALL AT ROOM SEATING CHAR
CLASSMATES
31 TESTIMONY
32 1 BY 1 TESTIMONY
33 ALL EPHESIANS 6:6
34 T O G O D B E T H E G L O R Y