Should same Sex Marriage be Legalized in the Philippines

As nations evolve, their laws must adapt to reflect societal progress and human rights. The ongoing debate about whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in the Philippines mirrors similar historical struggles worldwide. If America were to stay the same and never change, imagine where society would be. Over the course of years, people fought for their civil rights. From 1954–1968, African Americans protested and earned their freedom after slavery ended in the Civil Rights movement, fighting Jim Crow laws. Another passion-filled movement is the Women's Rights movement, which began in 1848 and continues to develop today.

In this struggle for equality, women fought for their rights to work, vote, and have the same opportunities as men. The same-sex marriage movement, particularly relevant as the Philippines considers its legalization, ranks among these other powerhouse events in history. What all three movements share is their fight for equality and freedom. Denying gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry the person they love constitutes discrimination, paralleling historical injustices worldwide. Just like not letting African Americans use the same water fountain or denying women the right to vote, banning same-sex marriage represents discrimination and classification of human beings based on perceived value.

As discussions continue about whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in the Philippines, it's instructive to examine landmark decisions elsewhere. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court favored with a 5-4 decision to legalize same-sex marriage across all 50 United States. Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was a pivotal swing vote in the case, stating, "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, and the constitution grants them that right" (Chappell 2015). This historic ruling, much like the ongoing debate in the Philippines, emerged from the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges. The case culminated after multiple state-level challenges, with states like Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Suits were filed in Federal District Courts, arguing that state officials violated the 14th Amendment by denying both the right to marry and recognition of marriages lawfully performed in other states.

The petitioners included fourteen gay men and women whose partners were deceased. This case highlights crucial considerations for nations like the Philippines, where the question 'should same-sex marriage be legalized?' remains contentious. The 14th Amendment clearly establishes equal protection under law for all citizens. While civil unions were initially offered as a compromise, providing similar benefits without the term 'marriage', this parallels current debates in the Philippines and elsewhere about marriage equality. The fundamental issue transcends mere terminology - it's about equal recognition and dignity. Same-sex couples seek equal rights, just as straight couples have. There is no difference between couples except for gender identity. When considering whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, the focus must remain on fundamental human rights and dignity.

When examining whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in the Philippines or anywhere else, health impacts must be considered. In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognized that excluding sexual minorities from marriage significantly contributed to poor health outcomes in same-sex households. Sexual orientation stigma and discrimination correlate with increased psychological distress and decreased quality of life. A U.S. study of over 36,000 people aged 18-70 found that LGBTQ+ individuals experienced significantly less psychological distress when in legally recognized marriages. The evidence supporting same-sex marriage legalization includes compelling health benefits: areas with marriage bans showed 36% higher rates of mood disorders, 36% increase in multiple mental health conditions, and anxiety disorders increased by 248%.

The research shows that not accepting same sex marriages as they are, can effect the individuals health and well being. People are selfishly choosing to discriminate against sexual minorities while it doesn’t affect their lives at all. The legalization of same sex marriage actually does more good than harm. If same sex couples felt as included as straight couples, then instead of having an unhealthy mindset, they can focus on more important things like making money, and helping our economy. We need to accept homosexuals for who they are, and treat them as equally as any other person who wants the same things in life.

There is the age-old argument that marriage exists primarily for procreation. However, this perspective ignores the complexity of modern relationships and remains a key consideration as nations like the Philippines debate whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. The institution of marriage encompasses multiple aspects: sexual relations, love, companionship, and procreation - yet marriages can exist without any single trait. Countries like Iran and China promote arranged marriages based on family alliances rather than love. We permit marriages between sterile individuals, elderly couples, and those who choose not to have children. The procreation argument against same-sex marriage thus fails to recognize these established exceptions.

A survey from CBC stated that 2% of straights couples get divorced per year opposed to 1% of gay and lesbian couples. It’s a proven fact that many same sex couples form relationships that are more stable than many heterosexual relationships, thus giving adopted children a more secure emotional home. Same sex partners had to work a lot harder to become parents, so it is very likely that they would be mores committed guardians, and this would help the adoption rate increase. A loving adoptive family, homosexual or straight, is better than the foster care system. In 2017, a total of 194,377 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years. Assuming that most of these women did not plan to have a child and are in school, a better solution would be adoption rather than trying to raise that child themselves. A baby would grow up in a better environment with same sex parents then a teen mother with the father possibly not in the picture. The child would be growing up in a financially secure home and would have unconditional love. A 2013 study in Australia recorded that children on average scored higher on tests than those with heterosexual parents. No matter what sex you are, having or raising a child is based on love and being a consistent, responsible caregiver.

Many Christians oppose same-sex marriage based on religious teachings. This religious opposition remains a significant factor when nations consider whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, including in predominantly Catholic countries like the Philippines. The passages condemning same-sex relations appear in the old testament, notably Leviticus 18:22. However, Jesus never addresses this topic in the new testament. Modern genetic research, absent from biblical times, demonstrates that sexual orientation develops before birth. This scientific understanding challenges traditional religious interpretations.

People have the right to their opinions and beliefs. However, progress demands we move beyond prejudice toward understanding. The question of whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in the Philippines reflects a broader global movement toward equality. Same-sex couples seek what heterosexual couples have: love, family, equal treatment. While some countries still criminalize homosexuality, others show remarkable progress. Pete Buttigieg's candidacy demonstrates this evolution, though media often focuses on his sexuality rather than his capabilities. Looking forward, the path is clear: banning same-sex marriage perpetuates discrimination. Every person deserves equal rights and dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Did you like this example?

4148

218