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

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

By: Atty. Fred

Atty. Fred — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:05:08 +0000

Lito, would that be contrary to law, public morals and public policy? No application of renvoi?

Deidy, very true, there’s no definition of man or woman under the constitution. You’re also correct that the llaw didnt state that a man is one who doesnt give birth. To be sure, some women cant give birth, but since they have d reproDuctive system upon birth, theyre women. No amount of surgery can change that. At least that’s how the law stands now.

By: deidy15

deidy15 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:31:43 +0000

“In same sex marriage, no interpretation is possible because the law is clear – marriage is between a man and a woman. ”

And the constitution never defined what “man” really is, as well as “woman”.

What if a woman with the reproductive system feels like a real man, did the law ever state that a man is someone who does not give birth?

Consistency is needed to support to an argument.