Student from Woodrose says love not enough for gay marriage

 A group of participants of the Metro Manila Pride March on June 27 poses in front of the Supreme Court with rainbow flags, urging the court to follow suit the SCOTUS ruling that legalized gay marriage in the United States. Photo by Speqtrum

A group of participants of the Metro Manila Pride March on June 27 poses in front of the Supreme Court with rainbow flags, urging the court to follow suit the SCOTUS ruling that legalized gay marriage in the United States. Photo by Speqtrum

Speqtrum is withholding the name of the author, who is a minor, but is providing a link to the article on the Philippine Daily Inquirer website. We welcome the author’s response to the impact of her essay.

A 16-year-old girl from Woodrose Alabang wrote a Youngblood article about her views on same-sex marriage. And in her perspective, love is not enough to justify it.

According to her article in Youngblood, the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s section dedicated to the views of the youth, the student compared the love of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) to that of having a relationship with a dog.

She made the reaction in the aftermath of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling in June 2015 legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states.

The girl argued that the defense that same sex marriage is a union just because love exists does not hold.

She said this cannot be logical because loving a pet – in this case, a dog – cannot mean one can have the right to marry his or her pet.

“Supporters of same-sex marriage claim that the main reason behind their union is ‘love.’ They say they deserve to be married to one another because they ‘love’ each other, and they want to make it official through a (marriage) certificate,” she wrote in her column titled “Divorcing History.”

“Is that even a reasonable answer? Just because they love someone, doesn’t give them the privilege to get married. Let’s say I love my dog very much; can I get married to my dog? The answer is clearly no, because it is naturally wrong. Just because we love someone doesn’t make it right to marry that person,” she added.

“This legalization has opened the door to people thinking they can get married to anyone, or anything.”

The girl further argued that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, as sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

She said a same-sex couple cannot reproduce and thus they resort to adoption. While she said there is nothing wrong with adoption, the Woodrose student expressed her reservations about how same-sex parents would raise their children, who she argued may grow up believing homosexuality is normal.

“There is nothing wrong with adopting children; in fact, it benefits the entire society. However, the problem arises in how same-sex couples will raise their adopted children. It is proven that every child needs the loving care of a mother and a father. How can these children grow up to be normal human beings if they have parents of only one gender?” she said.

“Additionally, the legalization of same-sex marriage may encourage more homosexuals, especially among kids who have them as parents because they’ll think it is “okay” and normal when it’s not,” she added.

The girl countered that the SCOTUS ruling may increase the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) because the condition had always been attributed to the LGBT.

“The ruling may increase the risk of many diseases. Gays and lesbians may have a higher risk of contracting HPV, or the human papillomavirus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men, as well as hepatitis A, B and C, gonorrhea, syphilis, “gay bowel syndrome” (a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems), enteritis and HIV/AIDS,” she said.

She said the SCOTUS should have thought of the implications in society of legalizing gay marriage in the US.

“Even without this ruling, we have accepted homosexuals for who they are. It has been like this for the past decades. So what changed in our society that made us divorce from our history?” the girl said.

The author is a senior high school student from Woodrose Alabang. In its website, the Woodrose School for Girls called itself a school which “nurtures in its young students a thorough appreciation of both academic and character formation” and which “believes in giving the students an integral education, which addresses all the aspects of the human person–physical, social, intellectual, moral and spiritual.”

The Youngblood article published Aug. 20 has earned more than 31,000 shares online.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s