ONE of the trending topics in social media right now is the idea of same-sex marriage and whether our country is open for it. I once wrote my stand on the issue a few years back and while a lot of things have changed over the years, I say the points I raised then still find merit in today’s context.
Recently, Taiwan has allowed the legalization of same-sex marriage. Our LGBT community here also clamor for the same. This brings to the fundamental question of how we define family.
Here are my notes on the matter.
The LGBT community clamors for legal recognition of the right to enter into marriage, but in all of history, or at least in the Philippines, LGBT communities were never really barred from “loving” whoever they wish to love.
Is this really an issue of “love” or is it something else entirely? Love is a universal right. One does not need a law to claim such entitlement. No one can stop me from showing love to someone of the same gender. In the same manner, no law or an absence of one can ever stop anyone from loving another person regardless of age, gender and sexual orientation. So why push for same sex marriage?
The clamor for institutionalizing same-sex union challenges one of the fundamental principles we hold as a society in defining family as a basic social unit. Our view on family is somehow rooted on the natural set up of things. Like in a tree as a unit, it has roots, a trunk, and leaves to survive and be productive. If it’s all roots, it can’t bear a fruit. If it’s all leaves, it can’t stand to shade and provide oxygen. The family, like the tree, is a structure. It is after all the basic social structure, and any minute change on such will surely alter everything else.
I am not saying that gay couple can’t be good parents, no, in fact I have seen how some gay partners provide better care to their children than some heterosexual couples do. That is not the point. After all, in our history, they were never really stopped from providing care to any child they wish to raise, be it their blood relative or someone else. Again, that is not the point.
There are three things why I say same sex marriage is found wanting in the concept of a “family.” First, is that a family is a unit of pro-creation. We are gifted with a gender, i.e. male and female, fundamentally so we can ensure the survival of our species. Nature dictates that our perfection is found in complementarity with the opposite sex. All other forms of sexual acts are unnatural and debatably inappropriate.
Second is that, with gender comes the gift of sexuality. The difference between males and females are not only limited to biological anatomy. With it is a whole package of manhood and womanhood that brings about complementarity in the composition and in raising a family.
Yes, gay people can always and have always lived in love under one roof, and I am not against that. But then again, the moment we choose to live the alternative lifestyle we have foregone our chance to experience union that we technically call family. In economics, that is called “opportunity cost.”
Third is that marriage is a legal institution that binds our technical definition of a family, a blanket we use to channel all other civil and criminal privileges. All our laws were made under the presumption that a family is composed of a father, a mother and their kids. To cater same sex marriage to be a legally binding contract equal to our old school marital contract would mean to re-engineer all other laws to fit on this new circumstance. The legal implications are just too massive to hastily decide on such matter. There’s that implications on parenthood and adoption, estates, last will and testaments, and special rights.
LGBT community should be afforded with the dignity that any person deserves. But to say that the issue on same sex marriage is about the right to love is outright misleading.