Comments on: Same-sex marriage – a call for arguments

By: Keisha Reinkemeyer

Keisha Reinkemeyer — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:05:48 +0000

@nikiluv73 Woooo hooo! Get Niki!!!!!!

By: Belle

Belle — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:51:59 +0000

YES, i am against to same-sex marriage because it is against the will of GOD.

By: marlon

marlon — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:39 +0000

TNX .. I HAVE A DEBATE AND I NID YOUR REACTIONS.. IM NOT AGAINST EEH ..

-1

By: marlon

marlon — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:36:34 +0000

ARE YOU AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE..WHY NO AND WHY YES ..ANSWER PLS,,

-1

By: mel

mel — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:48:39 +0000

what do you think about marrying the same sex?Is it healthy to our moral values?

By: mel

mel — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:47:05 +0000

hmmm

By: syelapin

syelapin — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:56:31 +0000

While I commend and admire the intellectual discourse above, i fear that it might all be an exercise in futility.

All the relevant laws involved in this issue were drafted and implemented under a regime and mindset antithetical to what supports “free love”. With our history and culture as a backdrop, highly doubt we’ll see THE change in our lifetimes. Yet I hope that I do.

Until then, to argue for same-sex marriage utilizing the laws as they are now would be like Sisyphus and his rock–only more cruel because the hardship is undeserved.

hey fred. hope you’re well.

By: orbil17

orbil17 — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:26:30 +0000

Wow, very nice contentions… Aren’t there any other opinions? I seem to agree with Lito… but I haven’t thoroughly comprehended yet the interpretation of the Supreme Court about Art. 26. Probably it’s high time for me to go back reading my books, hehehe… But if you could give me a url of your basis Lito, I would very much appreciate it.

By: Joselito Basilio

Joselito Basilio — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:52:12 +0000

Erratum : presumption to read as “reaction” in first sentence.

By: Joselito Basilio

Joselito Basilio — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:43:44 +0000

Thank you for your presumption Deidy15 and Atty.

My point is there appears to be a presumption that same-sex marriage is one of the exceptions under Art. 26, a special provision, based on the doctrine of inclusio unius est exlusio alterius. For this reason, one may presume that same-sex marriage legally celebrated abroad would not be considered invalid because Art. 26 does not include the requirement that parties shall be a man and a woman.

At is it presently expressed and worded, Art. 26 conflicts with the general provision of the Family Code where marriage is a union founded on distinction of sex, a requirement under the provisions of legal capacity.

-1