MERGED: Gay Marriage in the Philippines

[tingkagol]

IMHO, if you want to be together then go ahead. We all have the right to be happy. But trying to distort sanctity of marriage which is from the book that clearly prohibits relations of the same gender even in the New Testament, then that's a bit too far. If people can change that, then how much more our unalienable rights? Then nobody would respect the law anymore since they can bend it fit their purpose.

Nobody is trying to distort the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. Gays just want to be legally married. That's it. It's that simple. Again, nobody is trying to rewrite the rules of the Bible. It is what it is. Anyone, gay or straight, can't change it.

The problem is, the church takes it upon itself to apply its rules to ALL PEOPLE - Christians or not. Unfortunately, that is the very essence of being 'christian' - which is to spread the 'good news'. And since the majority are christians, it seems okay. But is it?

The best way to see how wrong this is is to reverse the roles. Assume christians are the minority and the majority are non-christians. How do you think the majority would feel if the rules of the minority also apply to them? It's absurd isn't it?

Lastly I'm not denying there's any discrimination but I am also not surprised why homosexuals are discriminated (think about it) anyone who is different from the majority of society is in a way discriminated and homosexuality is by far the most offbeat community even though it has been with us for centuries.

True. But do you believe this 'discrimination' of gays is justified? I mean, just because 'they're the most offbeat community', does that warrant being discriminated against? Does that make it okay then?

No, it doesn't.

[tuldahanay]

Sir, the gay and lesbian community is only appealing to the government so that they can marry legally. They are not petitioning any church to let them marry.

The laws of our country should not be governed by the laws of any religion. Diba it's not illegal for muslims to have multiple spouses? It's because the other religions cannot force their beliefs on anybody else.

Same goes with same s*x marriage. You cannot just say that it should not be legal because it's against your belief. You are trying to influence a legislation aimed to give the minority the same rights that we enjoy with the use of your religion. And that is wrong on so many levels.

assuming you are correct, i respect your opinion though there is a point also to what your'e saying... for muslims naman thats another thing na sd, kanang daghan og asawa kay wala pd na sa bible nga akong nabasahan cguro sa koran nila naa,,, pero cguro sa muslim sd wala mn pd cguro nasuwat sa ilang koran ang same *** marriage/ e base lang ni natu sa 2 major religion which has the same god kay ang uban murag lain pd ilang god...

so here's the thing... Human law=people,congress,senate can legislate as many laws as they want legalizing same *** marriage- I will respect it and obey it- I wont question it, coz we agreed to it (assuming all filipinos agree to it, to do such a law and make it official)
-> accepted law of humans (earthly laws-as u may call it) and there is no one above it here on earth of course.
-> can be change if needed (fact sad ni cya kay mausab mn jd tino-od ang bala-od mao bitaw naay gitawag nga revise laws, revise penal code and etc.
FIX NA NI CYA DRE:

LAWS BY GOD-laws that are mandated,legislated and approved by god.
example ani : 10 commandments

katu sand go to the world and multiply
katu sang a woman is to be partner by a man..kay laki mn una gihimo nya lonely mn cya so gikuha sa gusok sa lalaki og naporma ang babae mao na dayun to c eba., male female dayun,, adam and eve og history na ang tanan.

Now as humans do we have the power to change this laws- NO-RIGHT?

So my point is the laws of god can not be change by man, the laws of man can be change by man.
mao na cya ako point jd...

nganong gi stress out mana nako:

BECAUSE SA KATAPUSAN SA KALIBUTAN OG SA IMONG KINABUHI HUSGAHAN NAMAN KA SA KINATAS-ANG KORTE SA TANAN ANG COURT NI GOD NYA ANG PRECIDING JUDGE ANA IF WA KO MASAYOP C SAN PEDRO , CORRECT? Husgahan ka base sa imung binuhatan sa earth base on gods law

dre nata kuyawan:

At the end of the day either u will go to heaven or hell

so to gays and lesbians: I dont care if a law is passed and would legalize same *** marriage, ako nang e respeto balaod gd na... ang tinod anay gyud aning judgment unya is the judgment in the court of god.

church is separate from the state-true kaau ni
so ang judgement separate pd unya - to us humans youve done nothing wrong here on earth but when you go to the other side na lain pd nga court and laws didtu kang god na,, so you think you're safe now coz on earth its legal but mind you in heaven its not..

all I can say is

GOOD LUCK NINYU........

to me what matters most is the laws in heaven- I can live and abide of the rules here on earth coz I know its grasp on me wouldn't last an eternity good for 120 years ra na cya..
in earth you can live for as long as 120 years given that youre really in good shape

sa heaven for eternity mn so ari jd q mopalabi sa eternity..hangtud sa handtud kaha nah...

gays and lesbian marriage respeto ko ana here on earth pero sa heaven against ko ana kay patay q ni god if mo uyon q ana didtu.. and kita kits lang nya sa gate sa langit.. adtu nata didtu maka sulti og I TOLD YAH SO...
either kamo ang mo sulti ani nako or ako ang mo sulti ani ninyu...wew! taas jd nga comment...

[redemption32]

assuming you are correct, i respect your opinion though there is a point also to what your'e saying... for muslims naman thats another thing na sd, kanang daghan og asawa kay wala pd na sa bible nga akong nabasahan cguro sa koran nila naa,,, pero cguro sa muslim sd wala mn pd cguro nasuwat sa ilang koran ang same *** marriage/ e base lang ni natu sa 2 major religion which has the same god kay ang uban murag lain pd ilang god...

so here's the thing... Human law=people,congress,senate can legislate as many laws as they want legalizing same *** marriage- I will respect it and obey it- I wont question it, coz we agreed to it (assuming all filipinos agree to it, to do such a law and make it official)
-> accepted law of humans (earthly laws-as u may call it) and there is no one above it here on earth of course.
-> can be change if needed (fact sad ni cya kay mausab mn jd tino-od ang bala-od mao bitaw naay gitawag nga revise laws, revise penal code and etc.
FIX NA NI CYA DRE:

LAWS BY GOD-laws that are mandated,legislated and approved by god.
example ani : 10 commandments

katu sand go to the world and multiply
katu sang a woman is to be partner by a man..kay laki mn una gihimo nya lonely mn cya so gikuha sa gusok sa lalaki og naporma ang babae mao na dayun to c eba., male female dayun,, adam and eve og history na ang tanan.

Now as humans do we have the power to change this laws- NO-RIGHT?

So my point is the laws of god can not be change by man, the laws of man can be change by man.
mao na cya ako point jd...

nganong gi stress out mana nako:

BECAUSE SA KATAPUSAN SA KALIBUTAN OG SA IMONG KINABUHI HUSGAHAN NAMAN KA SA KINATAS-ANG KORTE SA TANAN ANG COURT NI GOD NYA ANG PRECIDING JUDGE ANA IF WA KO MASAYOP C SAN PEDRO , CORRECT? Husgahan ka base sa imung binuhatan sa earth base on gods law

dre nata kuyawan:

At the end of the day either u will go to heaven or hell

so to gays and lesbians: I dont care if a law is passed and would legalize same *** marriage, ako nang e respeto balaod gd na... ang tinod anay gyud aning judgment unya is the judgment in the court of god.

church is separate from the state-true kaau ni
so ang judgement separate pd unya - to us humans youve done nothing wrong here on earth but when you go to the other side na lain pd nga court and laws didtu kang god na,, so you think you're safe now coz on earth its legal but mind you in heaven its not..

all I can say is

GOOD LUCK NINYU........

to me what matters most is the laws in heaven- I can live and abide of the rules here on earth coz I know its grasp on me wouldn't last an eternity good for 120 years ra na cya..
in earth you can live for as long as 120 years given that youre really in good shape

sa heaven for eternity mn so ari jd q mopalabi sa eternity..hangtud sa handtud kaha nah...

gays and lesbian marriage respeto ko ana here on earth pero sa heaven against ko ana kay patay q ni god if mo uyon q ana didtu.. and kita kits lang nya sa gate sa langit.. adtu nata didtu maka sulti og I TOLD YAH SO...
either kamo ang mo sulti ani nako or ako ang mo sulti ani ninyu...wew! taas jd nga comment...

1. "so to gays and lesbians: I dont care if a law is passed and would legalize same *** marriage, ako nang e respeto balaod gd na... ang tinod anay gyud aning judgment unya is the judgment in the court of god.
"
Good to know that you have no problem with legalizing same *** marriage.



2. When the time comes when I face God, I can be proud of one thing, I can be proud that I loved my neighbors as I loved myself. And isn't that His Golden Rule or something?



3. "At the end of the day either u will go to heaven or hell".

Of course I'd like to go to heaven. Who wouldn't? But if heaven is filled with hate-filled, bigoted individuals, I'd think twice.


Wouldn't you?

[high_heels]

this is not about the LAW OF THE CHURCH and the LAW OF MAN.

gays...you want to be recognized not by church but by the law of "men" --- anyone who is in the position can bend this law, after all the "law of men" was created by MEN.

So now....to end this argument..this is where I believe it stops!

How about the law of NATURE? That we are all born to be NATURAL homosapien MALE and FEMALES. Bound to be MALES and FEMALES in this planet. BORN to have d!cks and v@ginas for the purpose of being recognized as male and females.

There is no single animal or specie in this planet born as a gender represented by "X" there were only two equations.

So where did the law of nature state that there is an "in between" therefore identified in this new world as gays, lesbians, transsexuals, gays?

The law of nature states that if you have "stick" then it is for a "hole", or vice versa....
the law of nature doesn't state that a "stick" and a "stick" is for each other. You surely didn't see any male dog humping another male dog right?

[raissah]

Gays and Lesbians only want to have the same rights as the straight people do.
The constitution already prohibits incestuous marriage. It may be because children born out of incestuous relationships are more prone to mental illness.
The constitution also prohibits bestiality because the animal cannot provide a informed consent.
But if you think that legalizing same s*x marriage is a precedent for also legalizing incest and bestiality, then by all means, let's take the issue one by one.
Let us all review the merits and demerits of each case as it comes.
But saying that same s*x marriage is wrong because incest and bestiality is wrong is a mistake.



Are we saying that marriage only exist for the purpose of having children?
Many marriages produce no children at all- maybe by choice, or infertility or age... Would this also be against the interest of our country?

You are given the same rights. To marry someone of the opposite ***. If by rights, you meant your right to be happily married to someone in your case, of the same gender, then sorry but the country is not particularly interested in making you happy. They will always lean towards the majority. This is sad but true.

The constitution prohibits incestuous marriage NOT ONLY because children born out of incestuous relationships are more prone to mental illness but of some other reasons as well like this is morally wrong.


Now, why would our government leaders be concerned with what the majority says and how the majority feels? In this case, this would be the Christians. Why? because they want our approval - because they want our votes. They can afford to lose the votes of the LGBT's than to lose the votes of the bigger crowd.

on the issue of HIV's/AIDS, anyone not just the homos, can get it. But homos are more prone to diseases because of (akong binisay-on) hugaw man gud ang lubot. And your toot inserted sa trambutso is so unhygienic. That is why this practice of same *** partnership is wrong. Although, I know for you it feels so right.

I did not say that marriage only exist for the purpose of having children. I am saying that this is against the interest of the country because wala na unyay manganak kung baye to baye and lake to lake nlang unya tanan. You are intelligent. I know you know what I mean. Don't twist my words to validate your call.

Now, I will ask you the same. You kept talking about wanting to but not being able to enjoy certain privileges. Are you saying you only want to be legally married because you want to enjoy these privileges and benefits? I don't think so.

[raissah]

3. "At the end of the day either u will go to heaven or hell".

Of course I'd like to go to heaven. Who wouldn't? But if heaven is filled with hate-filled, bigoted individuals, I'd think twice.


Wouldn't you?

The problem with you people is you tend to label anyone who's against same *** partnership as haters. Grow Up! For the record, we do not hate you. So stop using it as an excuse to harbor pity, acceptance or whatever it is you want.

You don't want to be discriminated and judged but look at what you are doing.

[redemption32]

You are given the same rights. To marry someone of the opposite ***. If by rights, you meant your right to be happily married to someone in your case, of the same gender, then sorry but the country is not particularly interested in making you happy. They will always lean on the majority. This is sad but true.

The constitution prohibits incestuous marriage NOT ONLY because children born out of incestuous relationships are more prone to mental illness but of some other reasons as well like this is morally wrong.


Now, why would our government leaders be concerned with what the majority says and how the majority feels? In this case, this would be the Christians. Why? because they want our approval - because they want our votes. They can afford to lose the votes of the LGBT's than to lose the votes of the bigger crowd.

on the issue of HIV's/AIDS, anyone not just the homos, can get it. But homos are more prone to diseases because of (akong binisay-on) hugaw man gud ang lubot. And your toot inserted sa tranbutso is so unhygienic. That is why this practice of same *** partnership is wrong. Although, I know, for you it feels so right.

I did not say that marriage only exist for the purpose of having children. I am saying that this is against the interest of the country because wala na unyay manganak kung baye to baye and lake to lake nlang unya tanan. You are intelligent. I know you know what I mean. Don't twist my words to validate your call.

Now, I will ask you the same. You kept talking about wanting to but not being able to enjoy certain privileges. Are you saying you only want to be legally married because you want to enjoy these privileges and benefits? I don't think so.

First of all. I am a heterosexual male. I'm defending an ideology that I think is right. Stop assuming that I'm gay because I'm not.

If the constitution says that marriage should only be with the opposite ***, then it is discriminatory and it should be changed. When you say that the government would always lean on the majority, can't you see what's wrong in that picture??!!!?! A government that should be equal to all, majority and minority, will only lean to the majority?? Stop and fathom that for a second. How many civil rights are we trying to infringe here?

You say that it is against the interest of the country if wla nay manganak. Again, how about infertile couples? Should we not allow them to marry because they cannot procreate??

And who is saying that gays and lesbians only want to marry for those benefits? I'm saying we are stripping them of more than just a rite. And the fact of the matter is, we cannot discern heterosexual couples who get married because they just want to enjoy these benefits.

[redemption32]

this is not about the LAW OF THE CHURCH and the LAW OF MAN.

gays...you want to be recognized not by church but by the law of "men" --- anyone who is in the position can bend this law, after all the "law of men" was created by MEN.

So now....to end this argument..this is where I believe it stops!

How about the law of NATURE? That we are all born to be NATURAL homosapien MALE and FEMALES. Bound to be MALES and FEMALES in this planet. BORN to have d!cks and v@ginas for the purpose of being recognized as male and females.

There is no single animal or specie in this planet born as a gender represented by "X" there were only two equations.

So where did the law of nature state that there is an "in between" therefore identified in this new world as gays, lesbians, transsexuals, gays?

The law of nature states that if you have "stick" then it is for a "hole", or vice versa....
the law of nature doesn't state that a "stick" and a "stick" is for each other. You surely didn't see any male dog humping another male dog right?

"So now....to end this argument..this is where I believe it stops! "

You'd like to think so, but NO.

Being "in between" or being homosexual can be observed in nature. It has been observed in over 1,500 species. God created these species. Are we saying that God made a mistake? Doesn't it show that homosexuality is indeed "natural"?

Aren't humans part of NATURE? So if humans and 1,500 other species have homosexual tendencies, isn't there a possibility that homosexuality is indeed NATURAL?

[raissah]

First of all. I am a heterosexual male. I'm defending an ideology that I think is right. Stop assuming that I'm gay because I'm not.

Aw. hahahahhaha My Bad!

If the constitution says that marriage should only be with the opposite ***, then it is discriminatory and it should be changed. When you say that the government would always lean on the majority, can't you see what's wrong in that picture??!!!?! A government that should be equal to all, majority and minority, will only lean to the majority?? Stop and fathom that for a second. How many civil rights are we trying to infringe here?

OMG! That's why I said SAD BUT TRUE! C'mon.. don't tell me you still believe in this bull that walay i-lean sides ang goverment? Really? Magpaka totoo ka brader!

You say that it is against the interest of the country if wla nay manganak. Again, how about infertile couples? Should we not allow them to marry because they cannot procreate??

Seriously?!

I think you know the answer to this. Knang couples nga dli manganak, are they male and another male? If not, then there is no issue kay legal man sa atoa ang babaye ug lalake. Ayg ingna nga tagsa tagsaon nimog pa check kung fertile ba or infertile and couples before sila paminyoon. You know this is stupid, right? Naa man guy 85% chance nga maka anak sila kay baye ug lalake man sila. Makes sense?

And who is saying that gays and lesbians only want to marry for those benefits? I'm saying we are stripping them of more than just a rite. And the fact of the matter is, we cannot discern heterosexual couples who get married because they just want to enjoy these benefits.

That was more of a sarcasm, bradier. You weren't supposed to answer that question.
Gibalsan ra tikaw sa imong style. Can't you tell?

By the way, you just answered your own question.

[redemption32]

OMG! That's why I said SAD BUT TRUE! C'mon.. don't tell me you still believe in this bull that walay i-lean sides ang goverment? Really? Magpaka totoo ka brader!

No. I don't believe that the government would not lean on one side, but does that make it right? Shouldn't we be against a government that only adheres to one group of people instead of treating everyone fairly?

Seriously?!

I think you know the answer to this. Knang couples nga dli manganak, are they male and another male? If not, then there is no issue kay legal man sa atoa ang babaye ug lalake. Ayg ingna nga tagsa tagsaon nimog pa check kung fertile ba or infertile and couples before sila paminyoon. You know this is stupid, right? Naa man guy 85% chance nga maka anak sila kay baye ug lalake man sila. Makes sense?

But how can you say that homosexual couples are against the interests of the country because they can't procreate, and it's ok for infertile heterosexual couples to be married?? Where is the equality in that?

That was more of a sarcasm, bradier. You weren't supposed to answer that question.
Gibalsan ra tikaw sa imong style. Can't you tell?

By the way, you just answered your own question.

If you don't expect an answer, don't you mean it's rhetorical, and not SARCASM?
And if you don't expect an answer, why post it then? This is a discussion board, I can react to anything I want.