MERGED: Gay Marriage in the Philippines

[trollolol]

---

if it makes the gay people happy, then why not?

What about the things that make pedophiles happy?

What about the things that make rapists happy?

What about the things that make arsonists happy?

Good argument by the way.

[SioDenz]

What about the things that make pedophiles happy?

What about the things that make rapists happy?

What about the things that make arsonists happy?

Good argument by the way.

Sunod mao nasad na i legalize ig human sa same S*E*X marriage

[tingkagol]

if it makes the gay people happy, then why not?

What about the things that make pedophiles happy?

What about the things that make rapists happy?

What about the things that make arsonists happy?

Good argument by the way.

Spot the difference.

Being gay isn't a crime.

Also, as long as the thing that makes anyone happy isn't a crime, is morally sound, and does not infringe on other people's rights, why not?

[diatabz]

What about the things that make pedophiles happy?

What about the things that make rapists happy?

What about the things that make arsonists happy?

Good argument by the way.

Slippery slope argument is flawed.

If the PH Constitution follows my Constitution (US), your argument is moot.

The constitution allows for two consenting adults to pursue marriage.

Chidlren aren't consenting adults.

Rape flies in the face of consent.

Horses aren't consenting adults either (beastiality).

Already made this case during my argument with Manny Amador (RIP) re Prop 8 in California.

[trollolol]

Slippery slope argument is flawed.

If the PH Constitution follows my Constitution (US), your argument is moot.

The constitution allows for two consenting adults to pursue marriage.

Chidlren aren't consenting adults.

Rape flies in the face of consent.

Horses aren't consenting adults either (beastiality).

Already made this case during my argument with Manny Amador (RIP) re Prop 8 in California.

Philippine law does not take legal notice of foreign jurisprudence/laws when they are in conflict with existing laws.

How is legal capacity to enter into a contract of marriage defined under the Family Code?

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female

Diha palang void ab initio na. Is it therefore illegal for homosex people to get married? Not entirely per se but anyone who in administrative capacity presides over such marriages knowing full well that such requirement is not met, is administratively and civilly liable. Not really illegal or criminal in nature (Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege) since there seems to be no law punishing two who enter into such contract of marriage.

But is the marriage binding? LOL no. Are the rights derived from such marriage enforceable? Shoody since there are none.

Amend the family code and have that particular section deemed unconstitutional? Haha good luck with that.

[necrotic freak]

Slippery slope argument is flawed.

If the PH Constitution follows my Constitution (US), your argument is moot.

The constitution allows for two consenting adults to pursue marriage.

Chidlren aren't consenting adults.

Rape flies in the face of consent.

Horses aren't consenting adults either (beastiality).

Already made this case during my argument with Manny Amador (RIP) re Prop 8 in California.

Your argument then with Sir Manny (RIP) doesn't mean you have already won your case.

[trollolol]

Spot the difference.

Being gay isn't a crime.

Also, as long as the thing that makes anyone happy isn't a crime, is morally sound, and does not infringe on other people's rights, why not?

What would be your argument against couples in incestuous relationships getting married (i am assuming that your are against such relationships. Do correct me if I am wrong)? Not morally sound? How is a homosex man inserting his p3n in another man morally sound? It is as morally sound as a brother having s3x with his sister. Current norms and tradition derive much of their morals from the Bible and you will find stories in the Bible about whole civilizations burned to ashes because of homos3x.

A pedophile does not need to force his will unto a child. There are instances where the child is more than just a willing accomplice. But please don't say the child lacks legal capacity to decide for himself when a similar legal capacity is not afforded to your kind in marriage.

Up until the 1970s, medicine recognized homosexuality as a mental illness. But I don't know what went wrong since I wasn't born yet.

[3nZ0y]

Your argument then with Sir Manny (RIP) doesn't mean you have already won your case.

And not winning the case does not mean he does not make sense. (Because admit it, he does.)

[tingkagol]

How is a homosex man inserting his p3n in another man morally sound?

Not the issue. Granting equal rights to both the hetero and homosexual population (such as being able to legally marry) is morally sound.

As for anal s3x, gay or straight couples need not marry to engage in it. I would like to point out that it's not an exclusive homosexual activity. Straight couples also do it. But I suppose you could make an argument that it's an immoral act. Especially if done irresponsibly thereby causing harm to their sexual partners (the spread of STDs for example). I'm no expert on the subject really. In fact, I'm inclined to think it's an immoral act. Bottom line - having *** (vaginal, anal, or whatnot) is immoral if done irresponsibly, potentially harming your sexual partner.

Still, it's not relevant to the topic- which is legal marriage.

A pedophile does not need to force his will unto a child. There are instances where the child is more than just a willing accomplice.

A pedophile forces his will unto a child every time, even if that child is more than willing to have s3x with him.

But please don't say the child lacks legal capacity to decide for himself when a similar legal capacity is not afforded to your kind in marriage.

You're confusing rights afforded to minors and those afforded to adults. Minors do not have the same rights (or legal capacities) as adults until they reach legal age. And as with everything in law, it is up for contention. You can make a case that it's 16, 18, 21, etc. The same goes for marriage - it's not entirely impossible for homosexuals to be allowed to legally marry, even in this country of ours. I doubt it will be legislated soon though, since the laws of the land are dictated by democracy, and the majority is resoundingly against gay marriage.

I'm not gay, by the way.

Up until the 1970s, medicine recognized homosexuality as a mental illness. But I don't know what went wrong since I wasn't born yet.

Scientists also believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth once upon a time.

[bitchybutsweet]

i am not against gay couples but let's just respect the law of God..