Same Sex Marriage

INTRODUCTION

Human sexuality is God’s gift to us. From the very beginning He created us male or female. It is this sexuality that enables us to relate with one another in family, in community and in society. Our sexuality is part of our very person and enables us to create life and love. Sexuality must be understood as an expression of love and commitment as in marriage wherein there is mutuality of the love relationship.
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage also provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.
What is marriage? This word has different meanings for different people.
To some marriage means a commitment between two people in holy matrimony, or religious marriage. To others it is just a legal contract between two people, or civil marriage. In actuality there is only one definition for a marriage.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, a marriage is a state of living together as husband and wife joined in wedlock. Webster also identifies a husband as a man and a wife as a woman. Same sex marriages are morally and ethically wrong, and they are also impossible to occur (according to our modern language). Same sex marriages, even though inappropriate, can be solved without upsetting both sides of the scale. Many same sex marriage supporters argue, "Why does every legal and political issue always have to be complicated by making it a moral and ethical question?" If there were no morals or ethics in government, society as we know it could not exist. It is unthinkable how someone can make this point. If these people had some logic and thoughtfulness in their minds as well as in their hearts, they would not be making these ridiculous comments. Arguments of this type are the cause of crime and poverty in our country. People don 't know the difference between right and wrong. Children need a mother and a father to teach family values and the difference between right and wrong. The world would be a much better place if everyone had a parent or a teacher to show them the proper path.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. If more of society would put a priority on their children and their future, there could be fewer problems faced by the community as a whole. If no one takes into account morals and ethics into their decision making, these deplorable situations could lead to a catastrophe.
If no one has any morals or ethics, our country would come to its decline.

DISCUSSION SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

The minute a human being is conceived, it is already endowed with the rights that are accorded to it by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These fundamental civil rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They include the right to speak their minds, to express their opinions, to take part in their government. These rights also include the right to marry.
Historically, the concepts of rights, whether they are civil or political, have been in existence since the Founding Fathers of the American nation drafted the first Constitution. However, for many years, people have been denied the right to enjoy these rights. For example, for almost 400 years, African-Americans were denied basic civil rights. It was only in the 1960s, when they were recognized by American law as human beings equal to whites and are therefore entitled to the same rights, even things as simple as where to sit on a bus, or a park.
What about women? For the longest time, women were denied many political rights, like voting or running for a government position.
The above mentioned are just examples of how, over the years, governments and societies have deprived civil and political rights to people with no justifiable cause or reason. It is common knowledge that these groups were deprived of their rights because of reasons that had nothing to do with their value as human beings, but because of the value that society placed on them as human beings.
This paper discusses the same concern, which is the deprivation of the basic civil right to marry for homosexuals. This paper also discusses the various reasons that society uses to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriages, as well as the reasons why the said marriages should be legalized. This paper tries to take into account the views of various groups, especially religious groups, but focuses more on the universality of granting civil rights, in an effort to understand the concerns of what we call as the third sex community.

MARRIAGE
The word "marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier ("to marry"), from Latin maritare ("to marry", literally "give in marriage"), from maritus ("lover", "nuptial"), from mas ("male", "masculine", "of the male sex").
Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Edvard Westermarck defined marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized as custom or law and involves certain rights and duties" to the individuals who enter into it, and any children born from it. Such definitions failed to recognize same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.
In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. In the last 10 years, in the English-speaking world, all major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.
Proponents of same-sex marriage such as Freedom to Marry and Garden State Equality use the term marriage equality to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Opponents of same-sex marriage such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Southern Baptist Convention use the term traditional marriage to mean marriages between one man and one woman. Maggie Gallagher argues that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Since 2001, ten countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden) and various other jurisdictions have begun legally formalizing same-sex marriages, and the recognition of such marriages is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grant equal rights as marriage or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term marriage should be applied.

HISTORY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.
Some early Western societies integrated same-sex relationships. The practice of same-sex love in ancient Greece often took the form of pederasty, which was limited in duration and in many cases co-existed with marriage. Documented cases in this region claimed these unions were temporary pederastic relationships. These unions created a moral dilemma for the Greeks and were not universally accepted. There may have been, at least among the Romans, marriage between men as evidenced by emperors Nero and Elagabalus[ who married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.
In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter 's marriage, was contingent on the suitor 's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.
There were also same sex unions among peers among the Ancient Greeks which were not age-structured. Numerous examples of these are found in Ancient Greek writings. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side. Lucian describes a debate in which a proponent of same-sex relationships describes them as being more stable than heterosexual relationships and goes on to express the hope that he will be buried with his lover after they have passed their lives together. Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages.
The first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.
Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows: When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
In the 20th and 21st centuries various types of same-sex unions have come to be legalized. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Portugal. Countries such as Greece, Romania and Poland restrict marriage to opposite-sex union, while countries such as Ireland and Italy are in the process of legislating on the issue.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Philippines have a distinctive culture, but limited legal rights. Although gays and lesbians are generally tolerated, if not accepted, within Filipino society, there is still a widespread presence of discrimination. Homosexuality in the Philippines, however, is increasingly being tolerated, and a gay movement is gaining strength and demanding their rights. The most visible members of the Filipino LGBT culture, the Bakla, are a distinct group in the Philippines. According to the 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Survey, 11% of sexually active Filipinos between the ages of 15 and 24 have had sex with someone of the same sex.
The entire concept of same-sex marriage will be met with utter astonishment in the Philippines. Philippine society has a relatively relaxed attitude towards homosexuality, but this is still a bridge too far. In the Philippines, same-sex unions will never be legalized as long as the political sector continues to allow itself to be influenced, not just by the Church of Rome, but also by all Christian faiths. This was never more evident than during a recent debate among presidential candidates, when all revealed their true colors by stating that they did not fully approve of the long-delayed Reproductive Health bill.
Legislation that would prevent marriage between transsexuals, and would remove current recognition of existing same-sex unions from Philippines law have been introduced in both the Congress and the Senate. The measures have been brought forward as legislators react to recent local court rulings allowing transsexuals to change their legal status from male to female.
There were also bills to ban Same-Sex Marriage filed in the Senate, House of Representatives of the Philippines. Three bills have been filed in 2006 in Congress this term that would in effect ban same-sex marriage in the Philippines if they get enacted. Rep. Rozzano Rufino “Ruffy” Biazon (Lone District, Muntinlupa City) filed House Bill 1245 to amend the country’s Family Code to limit marriage to ‘natural born males and natural born females’ only.
In the Senate, meanwhile, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed Senate Bill No. 1276 to bar same-sex marriages celebrated abroad from getting legal recognition in the Philippines. Ruffy Biazon’s father, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, filed SBN 1575, the Senate counterpart of HB 1245.
Biazon’s bill is a reaction to a number of rulings made by local courts allowing Filipino transsexuals to change their legal status from male to female. According to Biazon, “With recent developments in the field of medicine, it is now possible to alter or change a person’s sexual organ to make it appear as that of the opposite sex. This bill prohibits marriages between two men, one of whom had a sex exchange operation and between two women, one of whom also had a sex exchange operation.”
Such marriages challege the laws of God, of nature and even of man, according to Biazon. Defensor-Santiago’s bill, on the other hand, seeks to correct the Family Code, which does not explicitly void same-sex marriages solemnized abroad. Defensor-Santiago’s bill is premised on the belief that “marriage is a union founded on the distinction of sex.”
HB 1245 and SBN 1575 also bars the legal recognition of same-sex unions done abroad.
HB 1245 is pending in the House Committee on Revision of Laws, while SBN 1276 and SBN 1575 are pending in the Senate Committee on Youth, Women and Family Relations.
A Senate bill that would prevent transsexual marriages performed outside the country from receiving legal recognition was also brought forward. Legislation currently in place left room for the recognition of foreign same-sex unions by failing to specify gender requirements. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who sponsored the measure, said, “marriage is a union founded on the distinction of sex. That contracting parties must be of different sex is, in fact, a requirement under the provisions on legal capacity.”
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has urged lawmakers to refuse recognition to homosexual civil unions. Following the Vatican’s 2003 release of a document on homosexual unions, stating that such unions are not morally acceptable and may not be given legal recognition, the secretary-general of the CBCP, Msgr. Hernando Coronel, said the Philippine bishops “value and share the Vatican’s stand.”
The bishops conference urges the legislature to consider the law of God natural law in formation of human law. The bishops appeal to the members of Congress not to legalize what is immoral, to legitimize what is unethical, to make human law that is contrary to divine law.
The New People 's Army of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005. However it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been some debate on the issue of same-sex unions. The Roman Catholic Church stands in fierce opposition to any such unions. But since 1991 the Metropolitan Community Church Philippines has been conducting Same Sex Holy Unions in the Philippines. As of 2010, the issue of same-sex marriage is not "under consideration" in the Philippines. The only thing under consideration is a possible ban on same-sex marriage, including refusal to recognize marriages performed overseas. No political party has placed gay rights on its platform aside from Akbayan, a small party with only one representative in Congress. The Philippines has yet to even approve any anti-discrimination legislation, so any serious look at same-sex unions (in a positive sense at least) is likely decades or more away.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN OTHER COUNTRIES
The Netherlands were the first country to extend equal marriage rights to homosexuals. Belgium was second. Spain, South Africa, Canada, and the American states of Massachusetts and California legalized same-sex marriage later. Other jurisdictions grant some legal privileges to same-sex couples, often called partnerships, civil unions, or domestic partnerships.
Countries which have given some recognition to same-sex marriages
In North America, same-sex couples, from any country, could be married in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario. In 2005-AUG, same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada. The states of California, Hawaii, and Vermont in the United States and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in Canada allowed gays and lesbians to apply for registered partnerships or civil unions. This gives them some of the rights and obligations that are automatically enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. For example, Vermont "civil unionized" couples pick up almost 500 rights and privileges -- all the state has to offer -- but are denied over 1,000 federal rights and privileges. Gay and lesbian couples in California became able to register their relationship with the state government and obtain some restricted privileges.
In Europe, same-sex couples in the Netherlands and Belgium can marry. These countries do not differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, except that there are restrictions on same-sex couples where one spouse is from another country. A few European countries -- Denmark, France, Iceland, Norway and Sweden -- offer similar legal status to civil unions. Many cities in France and Spain have systems for gay and lesbian couples can register. However, they grant few, if any, rights.

Current recognition of same-sex relationships
Belgium: On 2003-JAN-30, Belgium became the second country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. However, the legislation does not allow them to adopt children.m: On 2003-JAN-30, Belgium became the second country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. However, the legislation does not allow them to adopt children.
Brazil: Marta Suplicy is a legislator representing the Workers Party. He brought forward a gay-partnership bill which "assures rights to inheritance, succession, welfare benefits, joint-income declaration, right to nationality in case of a foreign partner and joint income in order to buy a house." to gay and lesbian couples. The bill passed a Senate committee in 1996-DEC by a vote of 11 to 5.
Canada: The federal marriage act was amended on 2005-AUG to define marriage as a union of two persons. One exception to this law is in British Columbia where the polygamous marriages of members of a small Mormon splinter group are known to the government and allowed to exist.
Denmark: The first movement towards same-sex partnerships occurred in 1968 with a proposal by the Socialist People 's Party to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. A committee rejected the idea in 1973 because it would change the institution of marriage and adversely affect the way that people in other countries viewed Danish marriages. A commission was formed in 1984 to restudy the matter. Their Parliament amended laws covering inheritance and tax laws to give same-sex couples equality with married couples. The Social Democratic Party and the Socialist People 's Party cosponsored a bill in 1989 which would create registered partnerships. On June 7, 1989, and with the support of about 60% of the population, Folketing (parliament) passed the law by a vote of 71 to 47. It became effective on 1989-OCT-1.
The Danish gay newspaper Pan-Bladet reported (circa late 1995) that there have been about 1,449 gay and 634 lesbian registered partnerships registered under the law. 23% of the lesbians and 14% of the gay couples have since divorced; 11% have been terminated by the death of one partner. The divorce rate is lower than for married couples.
Partnership guarantees certain rights that were previously restricted to married couples: inheritance, insurance plans, pension, social benefits, income tax reductions, unemployment benefits and social benefits. It also makes them responsible for alimony payments if they divorce. But they originally were not allowed to have their partnership ceremony within the state Church of Denmark, or adopt children or receive free artificial insemination services. The law will probably be amended in the future to grant some of these rights. Opponents to the law were concerned that it would generate an influx of gays and lesbians into the country, seeking benefits. This did not occur, perhaps partly because the law requires one spouse to be a Danish resident. Not all gays and lesbians supported the law. Some, particularly lesbians, objected because of past negative experiences while married. Kim Engelbrechtsen, the information manager for Denmark 's Tourism Department said: "It 's had only a positive effect. It 's showing we 're an open-minded society." Per Stig Moller, a member of the legislature who abstained from voting on the bill, regards the bill as a success because it has helped stabilize homosexuals in committed relationships. "Now they live officially..."It works."
In 1997, the bishops of the state church (Danish Lutheran Church) voted to accept same-sex partnerships. Gay and lesbian couples can now have their partnership ceremony conducted in the state church.
Starting in 1999, gay and lesbian couples were allowed to adopt their partner 's children. However, they are still not able to adopt children from outside of their partnership.
Germany. The Federal government has passed a law which would allow gay and lesbian couples to exchange vows at a local government office. They would need to apply to a court for a divorce. They would receive some of the benefits that are automatically given to heterosexual married couples -- e.g. inheritance rights and health insurance coverage. However they are not granted the right to adopt and will not receive the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples. The law was championed by the Green party -- a group devoted to the environment. It was supported by the ruling Social Democrat coalition partners. passed in the lower house of parliament in the year 2000. However, the upper house, stripped the law of some tax privileges that are granted to heterosexual married couples. The states of Bavaria and Saxony applied to the Federal Constitutional Court for an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on 2001-AUG-1. They argued that the law breaks constitutional provisions that protect heterosexual marriage and the "family." The court turned down the request for an injunction but has yet to rule on the complaint. 4 Angelika Baldow and Gudrun Pannier, both 36, became the first couple to exchange vows in Berlin. Pannier said "I feel great. This is very symbolic -- a message that Berlin is a tolerant city. It is the fulfillment of a dream, but it is just the beginning. We haven 't got equal rights yet." Manfred Bruns, spokesperson for the German Lesbian and Gay Association said: "The registration of life partnerships still does not being equality, but is a great leap forward in the right direction."

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE One of the arguments for same-sex marriage is on the concerns of dignity and respect which states that the institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other. "Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect."
Another area of concern is on equal rights in which, denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -- the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy. In Finland there is a bill on the partnership of same sex couples. The authors of the bill feel that the right of persons of the same sex to enter a (legally binding) partnership is a matter of equality. The new regulations on basic right as written in the Constitution stipulate that no one must be subject to different treatment on the basis of one 's sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or any other reason pertain-ing to the person without an acceptable ground. A person 's sexual orientation is to the highest extent such a personal ground on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited. On the other hand, arguments against same-sex marriage centers on religious freedom: for most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex marriage, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples. Another aspect is on the issues of children benefit, many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. An additional point of argument is on teaching about same-sex marriage: The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM is legalized, schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.
While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.
Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.
The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.
Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are still often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. Some religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. Some governments have made special provisions for religious protections within the texts of same-sex marriage laws.
Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union. Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.
EFFECTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE The American Psychological Association stated in 2004:
The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable ... Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status ... the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges.
The American Sociological Association stated in 2004:
... a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples ... we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research ... the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006:
The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents’ relationship is recognized and supported by society’s institutions.
The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The United Kingdom 's Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated the following. The statement uses the term "civil partnership" and not gay marriage. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes ... the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership ... Maggie Gallagher and Margaret Somerville argue that a child has a right to be raised by a father and a mother, and that legalizing same-sex marriage undermines that right. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Philippines is the only Christian dominant country in Asia and it is 3rd in the World. Filipinos valued marriage a lot and respect its meaning and its purpose in the cycle of life. Furthermore Filipinos are applying in their culture the christian virtues and that includes marriage.
Same-sex marriage is a term they use for a legally or socially recognized marriage between two individuals of the same sex.
While state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is a relatively latest phenomenon in world today, same-sex relationship have been documented throughout time. The first country to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands and that was in 2001. Since then, many countries have followed the suit. The concerns of same-sex marriage regard it as a human right to have the benefits of marriage regardless of sexual orientation, which i could say it is an act that tries to destroy the essence of traditional or real marriage. Even majority of the people in these world are focusing to their civil rights many are still who opposed, often do so for religious or scriptural reasons, defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman only. Civil unions between same-sex couples are recognized in sixteen countries. The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was started in Denmark in 1989.
Imagine finding the love of your life, your soul mate. Imagine being happier than you have ever been in your life, and wanting to share your life with him or her forever through sickness and in health. Imagine wanting to pronounce your love through marriage. Imagine your own government taking away your right to do this, not allowing you to get married, or to receive the same treatment and benefits all others couples receive, just because the person you are in love with happens to be the same sex as you. The debate over same sex marriage in the United States involves several issues. Recently, marriage has been thought to be between a man and a woman in which the word itself is defined. As marriage supports procreation and society recognizes the significance of each other 's spouse, married couples receive several benefits from the government. The problem lies in that same sex couples are denied these same benefits and recognition from the society. This discrimination can be viewed as a violation of equal rights. The influence religious views have on banning same sex marriage can bring up the question whether there is true separation of church and state. If same sex marriages are legalized, the number of same sex parents and families are predicted to increase. This raises another debate on whether or not having same sex parents has a negative impact on children. Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are currently the only states to formally recognize "domestic partnerships", allowing same sex couples to apply for some of the state run benefits afforded to the married. However, the legalization of same sex marriages is being fought for the entire country. Banning same sex marriage violates people’s equal rights and heightens the issue on separation of church and state.

REFERENCES
Boswell, John (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. ISBN 0002555085.
Boswell, John (1994). Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books. ISBN 0679432280
Bruce L. Gerig, "Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt", in HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE, Supplement 11A, 2005
Dowell, Leilani (2005-02-17). "New Peoples Army recognizes same-sex marriage". Workers World Party. http://www.workers.org/world/2005/npa_0224/. Retrieved 2008-11-17.
Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7).
Guido Ruggiero, The Boundaries of Eros: Sex Crime and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice, Oxford, 1985 Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc. ISBN 0520078691.
John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80–85. Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424. http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/32/4/343.
Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000. ISBN 1894663632 / 978-1894663632
Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and male Culture in Renaissance Florence, Oxford, 1996
Philip Pullella, "Gay marriage, abortion new forms of evil: Pope," The Toronto Star, 2005-FEB-23, Page A14.
Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0805078150.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=952 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism" http://www.personalliberty.com/news/gay-marriage-divides-gop-19201739/ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/11/cnr.03.html http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/october99/1014.html#1

References: Boswell, John (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. ISBN 0002555085.  Boswell, John (1994) Bruce L. Gerig, "Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt", in HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE, Supplement 11A, 2005 Dowell, Leilani (2005-02-17) Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7). Guido Ruggiero, The Boundaries of Eros: Sex Crime and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice, Oxford, 1985  Hinsch, Bret (1990) John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80–85. Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and male Culture in Renaissance Florence, Oxford, 1996 Philip Pullella, "Gay marriage, abortion new forms of evil: Pope," The Toronto Star, 2005-FEB-23, Page A14 Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0805078150.