NICOLE ANN S.

DARIA
BET-DRAFT 1A

SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

The purpose of this paper is to debate and investigate the morality of same-sex marriage
which has been a source of great contention and is still prevalent in the twenty-first century
especially in our country. I will argue that same-sex marriages are not morally acceptable. I will
defend my position by using an appropriate argumentative model to use careful qualifiers and
clear logic, making an argument on the morality of same-sex marriage, and evaluating protests
against my position. There are many different perspectives on the morality of same-sex marriage
because some consider it inappropriate or sinful, while others believe that a person's sexual
orientation should not be considered. People who support same-sex marriage have decided to
legalize it, demonstrating equality and justice for all.
In the twenty-first century, same-sex marriage has been a source of concern and debate. It
has been the most divisive issue in Western cultures, attracting various points of view and
opinions. Any legal marriage means that it is recognized by the relevant authorities in the same
way that people can make their own personal vows. Different perspectives have been expressed
on whether or not the law should recognize same-sex marriage. In some states, same-sex
marriage is treated the same as any other marriage and is legally recognized, allowing the
spouses to enjoy all marriage benefits. Insurance coverage and inheritance It's not surprising that
the issue is so divisive. Same-sex marriage has sparked legal, moral, and religious debates all
over the world (Nussbaum, 2020). Its morality and justification have been hotly debated topics of
discussion. Both those who support same-sex marriage and those who criticize it find nothing
immoral about it as long as the law and human rights principles protect it. The main emphasis
should be on whether or not the matter is morally acceptable because the essay is on ethical
issues. I concur that it is not, and I will support my position with the following justifications.
Even though not everyone believes in religion, it is important to take religious
perspectives into account when analyzing the morality of same-sex marriage especially since we
are a Catholic-inclined country. Different religions hold different views on sexual orientation,
particularly when it comes to same-sex relationships (Kuefler, 2016). Christian thinks there are
various points of view on the subject of same-sex unions. Even though they hold different beliefs
and belong to different denominations, all of them condemn same-sex unions, calling them
wicked and immoral. Christian tradition has taught its adherents that same-sex unions are
incompatible with biblical principles. Christians are discouraged from same-sex marriages in
various ways. In fact, they forbid same-sex marriage among Christians because they oppose the
social acceptance of gay marriages. Same-sex marriages should not be morally acceptable in the
eyes of the law, according to such Christian viewpoints.The religious alienation that has been
positively associated with anti-same-sex marriages is another factor that supports my position.
According to Whitaker (2017), religions that forbid same-sex unions argue that the holy book
declares human heterosexuality to be God's original plan and a good thing. As a result, any
sexual desire that goes against God's original intent is viewed as sin and ought to be condemned.
Therefore, same-sex marriage is against God's original plan and is sinful even in light of the
court's ruling. A Christian is someone who loves God, and he or she will demonstrate that love
by keeping God's commandments rather than those of the powerful in the world. Many religions
forbid same-sex unions and instruct their adherents to abhor the practice. Additionally, Christians
view same-sex unions as temptations and unnatural desires. As a result, such relationships go
against the intended purpose of sexual activity (Kuefler, 2016). Different religions advocate
against same-sex unions because they promote disobedience to the sacred text.
I can defend my position by stating that marriages are created to uphold children's rights.
Many families continue to have children, including those that could have only happened due to
innovation (Benson, 2017). Conditions that children are sustained overall, and the State has
parental concern for the welfare of children. As a result, the State is working on legislation to
ensure the status and personality of children. In situations where conceptual innovation has
created ambiguity, the law determines who is a child's parent by separating generation from the
natural connection between a man and a woman. Similar to this, the state is interested in
marriage because a man and a woman can have children through their relationship.
The State supports marriage because it can lead to children. The State lacks the
motivation to take action to promote connections that do not produce children. Since marriages
are expected to ensure the stability of the personality, the State is concerned about their
restrictions and health of any children born during the marriage, which is the main objective, as
well as to protect their rights to equal parental knowledge, attention, and concern. The essential
foundation and source of the State's income in marriage is eliminated, according to Akpan
(2017), if the definition of union is changed to include relationships that are not the kind of ones
to result in children. Let's say children end up living with a same-sex family. In that case, they
would have always originated from somewhere else, either through a previous relationship or by
using a different biological parent and innovation. That would be due to someone else being the
child's birth mother in a same-sex male family. The law currently attempts to bind that child's
relationship to social guardians. A same-sex relationship and having children do not necessarily
go hand in hand, and legal considerations do not attach special importance to such relationships.
If the law were to change to include same-sex relationships in marriage, marriage would no
longer be about having children. It would, in a sense, be about adults.
The fact that marriages establish a child's connection to a mother and father supports my
perspective. The definition of a father to a child has been lost by the new law. The young people
who currently do not reserve an option to either a father or a mother, and whose natural
interrelation to a father no longer has any meaning in the law, are the ones who are most hurt by
that (Benson, 2017). The ideological attitude would also cover children's privileges since
same-sex associations and marriage would be declared to be legitimately equal, since children
would no longer be the main focus of marriage. Marriage would be an adult-only decision, and
as a result, both parties would benefit from it. The purpose of the current legitimate concept of
marriage is to secure the child's bond with both parents, a man and a woman. In order to be
guardians of their love for one another together, a couple must decide to get married (Akpan,
2017). Let's say that the significance of marriage isn't affected by that. In that situation, it turns
out to be very similar to another relationship, significant to the couple but not immediately
relevant to anyone else. By reclassifying marriage, the law would support the idea that it is
fundamentally about the emotional bonds between adults rather than the real, lasting bonds
between parents and children, with whom conjugal standards are closely entwined. Given that
emotions are unpredictable, viewing marriage as a passionate union would typically increase
marital instability. Additionally, it would make it difficult to distinguish between fellowship and
marriage. Common fellowships typically don't last very long. People would feel less obligated to
uphold these conjugal standards because they would be less able to understand the rationale
behind them.
Furthermore, people would gradually lose sight of the innate motivations they have for
getting married or sticking with a partner even when their feelings for them change as they
become less able to comprehend marriage's estimation as a particular kind of association, even
apart from the estimation of its emotional fulfillment. Overall, a misguided marriage plan would
mutilate people's understanding of the kind of relationship that partners are to create and support.
Furthermore, since children require them, that is likely to undermine people's adherence to the
fundamentally important conjugal standards of perpetual quality and selection.
The idea that the State keeps track of marriages to make sure they are not taken for
granted supports my opinion as well. The shared understanding between a couple and their
marriage's motivations is tested by the state association. In any case, if having children is one of
the inherent reasons for marriage, then this State contribution may be advantageous (Benson,
2017). Through the State, society makes it impossible for those who get married to break their
promises to one another, and subsequently to their children. To the greatest benefit of children,
the State also keeps records of child births, the deaths of their natural guardians, and divorces. In
light of this justification, same-sex marriage would be unethical and immoral.
Contrary to how marriage is currently understood, the revisionist perspective affirms that
marriage is the union of two people, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity, who are
sincerely committed to one another and who share the responsibilities and benefits of domestic
life because love and mutual respect still exist. Basically, it is a union of the heart and the mind,
made better by whatever kinds of sexual intimacy the two partners find pleasurable (Corvino,
2012). From a revisionist perspective, the couple also has the privilege of raising kids, all things
considered. The assumption that children might be obtained alternatively, by manifestations of
the will rather than of the body, replaces the procreative aspect naturally associated with
marriage. According to this agreement, the State should be more interested in heartfelt
associations than in the fundamental needs of children, perceive and direct marriage.
It is wrong and misleading to portray the occasion for same-sex marriage as an instance
for ending separation or for equivalent legal acknowledgment of connections in the debate over
ending segregation, which is another thing to take into account. The argument in favor of
same-sex marriage is typically philosophical because there is no local policy that would subject
them to any appreciable privileges segregation. When we firmly respect and uphold marriage as
it is currently understood, no real wrongdoing occurs. The term "married" is currently used to
honor those who are connected in long-term, enduring, dependable, and procreative
relationships. Marriage is a shared commitment for children.
This essay seeks to consider and investigate the morality of same-sex marriage, which
has generated much debate and is widely accepted in contemporary society. I have given careful
consideration to my position, which is that same-sex marriages are not morally acceptable.
Additionally, I supported my position by making an argument about the morality of same-sex
marriage, analyzing objections to my position, and relying on an appropriate argumentative
model. There are many different perspectives on the morality of same-sex marriage because
some people find it to be improper or sinful. Others, on the other hand, believe that a person's
sexual preference should not be relevant. However, same sex union is something to be
considered.

REFERENCES

Arroyo, C. (2017). Kant’s Ethics and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate - An Introduction, 165-
180. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55733-5_7

Benson, R. (2017, May 20). Ethical arguments against same-sex marriage laws. Retrieved from
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/ethical-arguments-against-same-sex-marriagelaws/10101420

Akpan, C. O. (2017). The morality of same sex marriage: How not to globalize a cultural
anomie. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 13(1). doi:10.18785/ojhe.1301.02

Kuefler, M. (2016). The Boswell thesis: Essays on Christianity, social tolerance, and
homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2020, March 25). A right to marry? same-sex marriage and constitutional law.
Retrieved from
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sexmarriage-and-constitutional-l
aw

Corvino, J. (2012). Debating Same-Sex Marriage, 4-90.

Endsjø, D. Ø. (2020). The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights.
The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(10), 1681-1700.
doi:10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961

Whitaker, R. J. (2017, August 22). What does the Bible really say about same-sex marriage?
Retrieved from
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-biblehas-to-say-robyn-whitak
er/8831826