Topic: Non-Beneficiality of Same Sex Marriage

1. It will increase the HIV epidemic in the Philippines.

It has been found that the Philippines has the "fastest growing" HIV
epidemic in Asia Pacific. According to the report, the new HIV cases among
Filipinos doubled from 4,300 in 2010 to 10,500 in 2016.1 The magnitude of the
escalating concentrated HIV epidemic in the Philippines continues to be felt by
the key populations it directly affects. Current country efforts have been
insufficient to reach targets on testing, diagnosis, and antiretroviral therapy
initiation. The HIV situation thus demands increased resource allocation and
programmatic enhancements.2

1
DOH, THE STATE OF THE PHILIPPINE HIV EPIDEMIC, 2016.
2
ID.
 85% of the new HIV infections among Filipinos are among males who have
sex with males, which the DOH refers to as MSMs.3 Two out of 3 new HIV
infections will be among 15 to 24-year-old MSMs, with only a few young men
fully aware of HIV, its symptoms, and treatment.4

Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines would most

likely increase the HIV epidemic more since the government would allow the
union of a man to man.

3
DOH, THE STATE OF THE PHILIPPINE HIV EPIDEMIC, 2016.
4
ID.
 2. It will affect a marriage’s establishment of a family life.

Article 1 of the Family Code. Marriage is a special

contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life.5

Art. 50. Family relations include those:

(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood. 6

According to the provisions stated above, having children or a child would

be important to build or establish a family life and that will only be possible by the
union of a man and a woman. In the dissent of Robert in Obergefell v. Hodges7,
it was stated that:

“The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation

occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman.
When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that
child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father
stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore,
for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can
lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a
woman committed to a lasting bond.”

Having same-sex marriage would prevent us from having procreation thus

will result to the decrease of birth rate and would consequently affect the Philippine

5
FAMILY CODE, ART. 1.
6
FAMILY CODE, ART. 50.
7 OBERGEFELL VS. HODGES, 576 US, 2015.
 Economy. Life expectancy is on the rise and the ageing population is increasing.
Slower population growth caused by a low birth rate in turn fails to offset a greater
share of the aged, and as previous generations retire, it increases the burden of
health care and pension provision by the working-age population.

3. It will open non-traditional couples to fight for their right to marry.

Article 1 of the Family Code. Marriage is a special contract

of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into
in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life.

In Article 1, it is made clear that only a man and woman should engage into
marriage.8 So, if the Philippines allow the same-sex marriage, it would lead other
non-traditional couples to fight for their right to marry. This includes incestuous and
underage marriage.

Also, in the dissenting opinion of Roberts in the Obergefell vs. Hodges9, it

was stated how another non-traditional marriage could arise from the approval of
same sex marriage.

“Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from

opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than
one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep
roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to
take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter
one.

8 FAMILY CODE, ART. 1.

9 OBERGEFELL VS. HODGES, 576 US, 2015.
 4. It will set up a conflict between religion and government.

The government will be in conflict with the religious institutions, in

the sense that, if the government allows same-sex marriage and the
church or religious institutions would not recognize such then they would
not allow such marriage ceremony to be conducted in their church. In the
dissent of Thomas in Obergefell vs. Hodges10, he said that:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental

institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision
might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It
appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict,
particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with
demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between
same-sex couples.”

5. It will prejudice the children.

Since same-sex couples cannot conceive a child, they are

required to adopt to have children. But, researchers have suggested that
while the parent’s sexual orientation may not directly affect the child, the
social stigmatization that the child perceives regarding his parent’s
sexual orientation may have a negative effect on his or her development
and psychosocial adjustment, regardless of their relationship with their
parents. Initial qualitative studies suggested that this may indeed be the
case. In a 1999 study of 76 children of lesbian mothers aged 11-18

10 ID.
 years, it was found that adolescents who perceived greater stigma about
their mother’s sexual orientation had lower levels of self-esteem.11

6. There would be a need to change the educational curriculum

Revising school curriculum to present material favoring

acceptance of homosexual relations, and adopting programs and
policies to promote acceptance of or experience with homosexual
relations is a major area of developing conflict in education.12
Perhaps the most famous example, typical of many, is the set of
events in an elementary school in Massachusetts that led to the
seminal federal court decisions in Parker v. Hurley13.

“The Parkers were concerned that this book was part of

an effort by the public schools to indoctrinate young children
into the concept that homosexuality and homosexual
relationships or marriage are moral and acceptable
behavior. Such an effort, they feared, would require their
sons to affirm a belief inconsistent with their religion. They
met with the principal, Joni Jay, to request that Jacob not be
exposed to any further discussions of homosexuality.”

11 T.D. GERSHON, J. TSCHANN, J. JEMERIN, STIGMATIZATION, SELF-ESTEEM, AND COPING AMONG THE
ADOLESCENT CHILDREN OF LESBIAN MOTHERS, JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 24:437-445, 1999.
12 L.D W ARDLE, THE IMPACTS ON EDUCATION OF LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND LESSONS FROM

ABORTION JURISPRUDENCE, 2011.

13 PARKER VS. HURLEY, 474 F. SUPP. 2D 261, 264, JANUARY 21, 2008