RESOLUTION: THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES

AFFIRMATIVE – 4TH SPEAKER

Ladies and gentlemen, to the negative side, to our moderator and professor
- Atty. Bantasan, good evening.
I will start this speech with Will Rogers’ words, “We will never have true
civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.”
Our group firmly affirm the resolution that same sex marriage be legalize in
the Philippines, for this is an issue of human rights and not a religious one, a matter
of keeping love and not letting partners who feel that love just pass-by.
First of all, as what our group asserts in this debate, not legalizing same-sex
marriage is a violation of equal protection clause in our Constitution. As what
Aristotle said, “The only stable state is one which all men are equal before the law”,
and as asserted by Tom Robbins in saying that “Equality is not regarding different
things similarly; equality is in regarding different things differently.”
Legalizing same-sex marriage will solve minority discriminations. It is time to
change and end the pattern of vicious discrimination against homosexual citizens.
(1) It will end inferiority amongst those who are made to feel lesser about
themselves and will lead to economic and social prosperity as they will find new
confidence for they will be viewed as equals in the eyes of the government.
Second, it is not a valid reason for the government to not grant their citizens
the rights they should have just because there is some discomfort with the citizen.
Denying the minority, the rights and liberties they should be accorded is not giving
justice to them. We are a democratic and republican country and we are not under
utilitarianism to sacrifice the rights of “some” for the happiness of others. If the
negative side will avow with majoritarianism and bend to the majority, shouldn’t
they have bent to the majority in the past? When women fight for their rights even
though a majority challenged it? Or the other civil rights which the minority fought
for but challenged by the majority?
Furthermore, opposing the idea of legalizing same sex marriage translates to
reluctance of homosexual status to that “less than” the others. This message

1. Look for cases of discrimination and the number of homosexuals.

2. Look for “other civil rights” you stated to support your contention
happens together with the stereotype that the homosexuals are vile creatures or
merely abnormalities in society when they are not. They are already facing
existential crises when addressing the question of “what is my sexual orientation?”
and it’s not helping the society as a whole that these people are ultimately being
devalue. Again, Philippines is a country which promotes a great deal of equality.
Laws should not only conform with the present but should be looking
forward. Homosexuality is not a disease one may prevent or stop from spreading.
It is an inevitable crises of sexual orientation so why not while at it, legalize same
sex marriage to guide the future.
Moreover, “marriage”, if is what the opposing side, should not be given to
the homosexuals and that a civil union should do because it creates the same thing
then we will give back the same logic. If civil union creates the same thing as that
of the marriage, why not call it marriage and legalize it?
Additionally, there is no tangible effect of legalizing same sex marriage upon
other individuals. No rights being infringe on.
This is neither a matter of what is morally acceptable nor morally good nor
ethics. We do reject the idea that government should be conflicted between those
irrelevant issues. Religious arguments about homosexuality and of what is morally
acceptable have no place in government legislation, just like the bible’s support for
slavery or it’s subjection of women no longer do. This is a premise of the separation
of church and State. Being homosexual is not abnormal as that being a left handed.
And if it’s the marriage’s sacredness, then there shouldn’t be a consideration of
divorce for it ruin the sacredness of marriage more than that of creating a marriage
of the same sex.
Filipinos keep on talking about how they are a family-oriented race but then
keep on discriminating those homosexuals who wants to create a family of their
own and that, ladies and gentleman, is what we call hypocrisy. One cannot agree
to the idea of “family-oriented” and be hateful of same-sex marriage.
With this, I rest my case.

1. Look for cases of discrimination and the number of homosexuals.

2. Look for “other civil rights” you stated to support your contention